by Ugh
Fnck this is really happening isn't it? Trump is going to drop out and say it's all a joke, no? No?
Is it good that I went under contract for a house today? We lost out the last two times to people with more money than sense. And here I thought nobody had more money and less sense than I, maybe the Kardashians bought those two houses.
Please try to keep your lunch and dinner down tonight.
Open thread for the debate.
Feh.
Stock up popcorn and barf bags. You may need both.
Stock up popcorn and barf bags. You may need both.
Stock up popcorn and barf bags. You may need both.
I am not going to contribute to this thread again.
You are welcome.
I am not going to contribute to this thread again.
You are welcome.
I am not going to contribute to this thread again.
You are welcome.
We can cross post with Falcons-Saints.
We can cross post with Falcons-Saints.
We can cross post with Falcons-Saints.
I don’t I’ve ever been more embarrassed to be American.
I don’t I’ve ever been more embarrassed to be American.
I don’t I’ve ever been more embarrassed to be American.
So far, the Saints are looking good. Or maybe, from the number of penalties the defense is making, that should be the Falcons are looking bad.
So far, the Saints are looking good. Or maybe, from the number of penalties the defense is making, that should be the Falcons are looking bad.
So far, the Saints are looking good. Or maybe, from the number of penalties the defense is making, that should be the Falcons are looking bad.
We are all Groucho Marx now.
We are all Groucho Marx now.
We are all Groucho Marx now.
Good on you to get this up! My post isn’t ready yet, I’ll put it up later tonight or tomorrow morning. Livetweeting at https://twitter.com/doctorscience
Good on you to get this up! My post isn’t ready yet, I’ll put it up later tonight or tomorrow morning. Livetweeting at https://twitter.com/doctorscience
Good on you to get this up! My post isn’t ready yet, I’ll put it up later tonight or tomorrow morning. Livetweeting at https://twitter.com/doctorscience
Epic fail for me. I lasted less than 10 minutes before Trump’s disconnect from reality exceeded my tolerance.
Guess I’ll have to make do with the blogs….
Epic fail for me. I lasted less than 10 minutes before Trump’s disconnect from reality exceeded my tolerance.
Guess I’ll have to make do with the blogs….
Epic fail for me. I lasted less than 10 minutes before Trump’s disconnect from reality exceeded my tolerance.
Guess I’ll have to make do with the blogs….
it was sort of reasonable for about 10 minutes.
it was sort of reasonable for about 10 minutes.
it was sort of reasonable for about 10 minutes.
America: Sort of Reasonable.
I like it! 🙂
I confess I can’t watch these things because I don’t like to be in a defensive crouch for that long.
America: Sort of Reasonable.
I like it! 🙂
I confess I can’t watch these things because I don’t like to be in a defensive crouch for that long.
America: Sort of Reasonable.
I like it! 🙂
I confess I can’t watch these things because I don’t like to be in a defensive crouch for that long.
Saints Falcons is a shootout!
Saints Falcons is a shootout!
Saints Falcons is a shootout!
we stumbled into it when our recorded Mr Robot episode finished.
Trump said Clinton had been fighting ISIS her whole life.
that was all i could take.
we stumbled into it when our recorded Mr Robot episode finished.
Trump said Clinton had been fighting ISIS her whole life.
that was all i could take.
we stumbled into it when our recorded Mr Robot episode finished.
Trump said Clinton had been fighting ISIS her whole life.
that was all i could take.
Perhaps Trump thinks fighting ISIS is a bad thing? Otherwise why “accuse” Clinton of doing so?
Guess I must be missing something.
Perhaps Trump thinks fighting ISIS is a bad thing? Otherwise why “accuse” Clinton of doing so?
Guess I must be missing something.
Perhaps Trump thinks fighting ISIS is a bad thing? Otherwise why “accuse” Clinton of doing so?
Guess I must be missing something.
The frightening thing is not the mendacity, bluster, and idiocy of He, Trump. It’s not even the thought that about half the country buys his BS.
The truly frightening thing is that sane people are supposed to pretend that about half the country is not out of its mind.
–TP
The frightening thing is not the mendacity, bluster, and idiocy of He, Trump. It’s not even the thought that about half the country buys his BS.
The truly frightening thing is that sane people are supposed to pretend that about half the country is not out of its mind.
–TP
The frightening thing is not the mendacity, bluster, and idiocy of He, Trump. It’s not even the thought that about half the country buys his BS.
The truly frightening thing is that sane people are supposed to pretend that about half the country is not out of its mind.
–TP
I stopped watching a little while ago, but FWIW I think it was a better debate than I expected. Trump is still Trump, Clinton is still Clinton, but nobody is throwing any furniture around.
Clinton is at her most compelling when she lets her passion show. When she was talking about incarceration rates of blacks and the end of private prisons at the federal level, she was fired the hell up. It was freaking great.
She needs to focus like a laser on that stuff. She has, in fact, been a freaking warrior for a number of really good causes for, like, ever.
While Trump was turning his dad’s money into big ugly buildings and figuring out how to license his last name on everything from steaks to neckties, Clinton was in the trenches getting shit done. She needs to hammer that home, over and over and over.
Trump raises really good issues, which is why IMO he’s done so well. Enormous segments of the economy are freaking hollowed out. It’s not always clear who our representatives are actually representing. A lot of folks are getting screwed over.
His boorishness doesn’t actually bug me all that much, because I grew up around entitled NY assholes and I just roll my eyes.
But what his pitch comes down to is this:
Get out of the way of the rich guys, let them do their thing, and it’ll all turn out well.
Clinton is correct to say it’s the return of trickle-down, although I’m not sure how much traction it will give her among the folks who should be most interested.
36 years ago we had a former actor living in some kind of nostalgic fugue state telling us that.
16 years ago we had an ‘in over his head’ faux-cowboy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth tell us that.
Four years ago we had a nice polite rich guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth tell us that.
This year we have a loudmouth NY asshole rich guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth telling us that.
SSDD.
Best of luck to Clinton, I’m not sure what happens if she loses.
I stopped watching a little while ago, but FWIW I think it was a better debate than I expected. Trump is still Trump, Clinton is still Clinton, but nobody is throwing any furniture around.
Clinton is at her most compelling when she lets her passion show. When she was talking about incarceration rates of blacks and the end of private prisons at the federal level, she was fired the hell up. It was freaking great.
She needs to focus like a laser on that stuff. She has, in fact, been a freaking warrior for a number of really good causes for, like, ever.
While Trump was turning his dad’s money into big ugly buildings and figuring out how to license his last name on everything from steaks to neckties, Clinton was in the trenches getting shit done. She needs to hammer that home, over and over and over.
Trump raises really good issues, which is why IMO he’s done so well. Enormous segments of the economy are freaking hollowed out. It’s not always clear who our representatives are actually representing. A lot of folks are getting screwed over.
His boorishness doesn’t actually bug me all that much, because I grew up around entitled NY assholes and I just roll my eyes.
But what his pitch comes down to is this:
Get out of the way of the rich guys, let them do their thing, and it’ll all turn out well.
Clinton is correct to say it’s the return of trickle-down, although I’m not sure how much traction it will give her among the folks who should be most interested.
36 years ago we had a former actor living in some kind of nostalgic fugue state telling us that.
16 years ago we had an ‘in over his head’ faux-cowboy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth tell us that.
Four years ago we had a nice polite rich guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth tell us that.
This year we have a loudmouth NY asshole rich guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth telling us that.
SSDD.
Best of luck to Clinton, I’m not sure what happens if she loses.
I stopped watching a little while ago, but FWIW I think it was a better debate than I expected. Trump is still Trump, Clinton is still Clinton, but nobody is throwing any furniture around.
Clinton is at her most compelling when she lets her passion show. When she was talking about incarceration rates of blacks and the end of private prisons at the federal level, she was fired the hell up. It was freaking great.
She needs to focus like a laser on that stuff. She has, in fact, been a freaking warrior for a number of really good causes for, like, ever.
While Trump was turning his dad’s money into big ugly buildings and figuring out how to license his last name on everything from steaks to neckties, Clinton was in the trenches getting shit done. She needs to hammer that home, over and over and over.
Trump raises really good issues, which is why IMO he’s done so well. Enormous segments of the economy are freaking hollowed out. It’s not always clear who our representatives are actually representing. A lot of folks are getting screwed over.
His boorishness doesn’t actually bug me all that much, because I grew up around entitled NY assholes and I just roll my eyes.
But what his pitch comes down to is this:
Get out of the way of the rich guys, let them do their thing, and it’ll all turn out well.
Clinton is correct to say it’s the return of trickle-down, although I’m not sure how much traction it will give her among the folks who should be most interested.
36 years ago we had a former actor living in some kind of nostalgic fugue state telling us that.
16 years ago we had an ‘in over his head’ faux-cowboy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth tell us that.
Four years ago we had a nice polite rich guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth tell us that.
This year we have a loudmouth NY asshole rich guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth telling us that.
SSDD.
Best of luck to Clinton, I’m not sure what happens if she loses.
My sister was disappointed that Hillary failed to ask He, Trump whether the black men shot by cops in Tulsa and Charlotte got Law or Order.
–TP
My sister was disappointed that Hillary failed to ask He, Trump whether the black men shot by cops in Tulsa and Charlotte got Law or Order.
–TP
My sister was disappointed that Hillary failed to ask He, Trump whether the black men shot by cops in Tulsa and Charlotte got Law or Order.
–TP
Despite my determination not to watch it I did. Idiocy. I’m not sure if anyone thinks these debates are a productive way to discuss issues, but maybe it is all about who can fake gravitas better. So we saw once again one important thing which we all knew anyway– Trump can’t control himself for more than a few minutes.
This ought to hurt him– whoever gets more attention in this race loses support ( except for convention bounces) and he kept showing his weaknesses. But I won’t predict anything.
Despite my determination not to watch it I did. Idiocy. I’m not sure if anyone thinks these debates are a productive way to discuss issues, but maybe it is all about who can fake gravitas better. So we saw once again one important thing which we all knew anyway– Trump can’t control himself for more than a few minutes.
This ought to hurt him– whoever gets more attention in this race loses support ( except for convention bounces) and he kept showing his weaknesses. But I won’t predict anything.
Despite my determination not to watch it I did. Idiocy. I’m not sure if anyone thinks these debates are a productive way to discuss issues, but maybe it is all about who can fake gravitas better. So we saw once again one important thing which we all knew anyway– Trump can’t control himself for more than a few minutes.
This ought to hurt him– whoever gets more attention in this race loses support ( except for convention bounces) and he kept showing his weaknesses. But I won’t predict anything.
Donald,
What would you suggest instead of “these debates”?
I’d go for IQ tests and written exams, myself, but I suspect others would prefer mud wrestling or pistols at dawn. Or maybe debates with a different format. But if so, what format?
–TP
Donald,
What would you suggest instead of “these debates”?
I’d go for IQ tests and written exams, myself, but I suspect others would prefer mud wrestling or pistols at dawn. Or maybe debates with a different format. But if so, what format?
–TP
Donald,
What would you suggest instead of “these debates”?
I’d go for IQ tests and written exams, myself, but I suspect others would prefer mud wrestling or pistols at dawn. Or maybe debates with a different format. But if so, what format?
–TP
The parallax would have been better and the debate more entertaining if the other two candidates had been included.
The parallax would have been better and the debate more entertaining if the other two candidates had been included.
The parallax would have been better and the debate more entertaining if the other two candidates had been included.
#DonaldBump
#DonaldBump
#DonaldBump
My format would be an hours long series of questions over several nights by a range of knowledgeable people with varying perspectives on different issues. If we were serious about issues in our campaigns, that is.. I know the theory is that questioners just get in the way and it more interesting to hear the candidates but that’s just wrong, unless the idea is to see what their personalities are like in this situation. We did see Trump’s tonight. Even if we had two normal candidates instead of one normal and one freak, they always spin and twist their answers and some topics are avoided altogether by both. You need questioners knowledgeable enough to ask follow up questions when this happens. And it should be expected to happen, until politicians learn they can’t squirm out of difficult questions.
In the past they have tried something like this, but the questions were IMO not that great. You could have a night given to foreign policy with a panel of experts with differing views. Other nights about economics, or civil rights or the environment. They have done these separate night devoted to cluster of issues format, but the ones I have seen were not done well. They would be able to respond to each other too, but without third parties willing to challenge them both you will get a lot of BS even with normal non Trump politicians.
With Trump of course the answers would be a mess, but debate formats should be put together with the idea in mind that someone who wants to be President should be able to talk intelligently on a wide range of topics.
Obviously this won’t happen, or not easily, but I think it ought to be demanded. But Americans might prefer the current format.
My format would be an hours long series of questions over several nights by a range of knowledgeable people with varying perspectives on different issues. If we were serious about issues in our campaigns, that is.. I know the theory is that questioners just get in the way and it more interesting to hear the candidates but that’s just wrong, unless the idea is to see what their personalities are like in this situation. We did see Trump’s tonight. Even if we had two normal candidates instead of one normal and one freak, they always spin and twist their answers and some topics are avoided altogether by both. You need questioners knowledgeable enough to ask follow up questions when this happens. And it should be expected to happen, until politicians learn they can’t squirm out of difficult questions.
In the past they have tried something like this, but the questions were IMO not that great. You could have a night given to foreign policy with a panel of experts with differing views. Other nights about economics, or civil rights or the environment. They have done these separate night devoted to cluster of issues format, but the ones I have seen were not done well. They would be able to respond to each other too, but without third parties willing to challenge them both you will get a lot of BS even with normal non Trump politicians.
With Trump of course the answers would be a mess, but debate formats should be put together with the idea in mind that someone who wants to be President should be able to talk intelligently on a wide range of topics.
Obviously this won’t happen, or not easily, but I think it ought to be demanded. But Americans might prefer the current format.
My format would be an hours long series of questions over several nights by a range of knowledgeable people with varying perspectives on different issues. If we were serious about issues in our campaigns, that is.. I know the theory is that questioners just get in the way and it more interesting to hear the candidates but that’s just wrong, unless the idea is to see what their personalities are like in this situation. We did see Trump’s tonight. Even if we had two normal candidates instead of one normal and one freak, they always spin and twist their answers and some topics are avoided altogether by both. You need questioners knowledgeable enough to ask follow up questions when this happens. And it should be expected to happen, until politicians learn they can’t squirm out of difficult questions.
In the past they have tried something like this, but the questions were IMO not that great. You could have a night given to foreign policy with a panel of experts with differing views. Other nights about economics, or civil rights or the environment. They have done these separate night devoted to cluster of issues format, but the ones I have seen were not done well. They would be able to respond to each other too, but without third parties willing to challenge them both you will get a lot of BS even with normal non Trump politicians.
With Trump of course the answers would be a mess, but debate formats should be put together with the idea in mind that someone who wants to be President should be able to talk intelligently on a wide range of topics.
Obviously this won’t happen, or not easily, but I think it ought to be demanded. But Americans might prefer the current format.
… a range of knowledgeable people with varying perspectives on different issues …
Some would call people like that “elite”, Donald. And you know it would not be a compliment.
Being unabashedly elitist without being remotely elite myself, I would of course pay good money to see presidential debates along the lines you advocate.
–TP
… a range of knowledgeable people with varying perspectives on different issues …
Some would call people like that “elite”, Donald. And you know it would not be a compliment.
Being unabashedly elitist without being remotely elite myself, I would of course pay good money to see presidential debates along the lines you advocate.
–TP
… a range of knowledgeable people with varying perspectives on different issues …
Some would call people like that “elite”, Donald. And you know it would not be a compliment.
Being unabashedly elitist without being remotely elite myself, I would of course pay good money to see presidential debates along the lines you advocate.
–TP
I know they would, but people usually don’t resent elitists who have views similar to theirs, so that’s one reason why you’d need a range of viewpoints. I suppose I would draw the line at scientific crackpots, so the charge of elitism might stick there. Perhaps on second thought a few cranks should be allowed too. ( Thinking of global warming deniers on environment night. Let one denier ask a question). And normal people could be invited to submit some questions.
I know they would, but people usually don’t resent elitists who have views similar to theirs, so that’s one reason why you’d need a range of viewpoints. I suppose I would draw the line at scientific crackpots, so the charge of elitism might stick there. Perhaps on second thought a few cranks should be allowed too. ( Thinking of global warming deniers on environment night. Let one denier ask a question). And normal people could be invited to submit some questions.
I know they would, but people usually don’t resent elitists who have views similar to theirs, so that’s one reason why you’d need a range of viewpoints. I suppose I would draw the line at scientific crackpots, so the charge of elitism might stick there. Perhaps on second thought a few cranks should be allowed too. ( Thinking of global warming deniers on environment night. Let one denier ask a question). And normal people could be invited to submit some questions.
So, Donald, what happens when some candidate simply declines to participate? Which someone as ignorant as Trump would.
We don’t learn anything about his views on the issues you care about — which is where we are now. And we don’t learn anything about their temperament and how they deal with pressure either. In short, we end up with a net loss of information.
So, Donald, what happens when some candidate simply declines to participate? Which someone as ignorant as Trump would.
We don’t learn anything about his views on the issues you care about — which is where we are now. And we don’t learn anything about their temperament and how they deal with pressure either. In short, we end up with a net loss of information.
So, Donald, what happens when some candidate simply declines to participate? Which someone as ignorant as Trump would.
We don’t learn anything about his views on the issues you care about — which is where we are now. And we don’t learn anything about their temperament and how they deal with pressure either. In short, we end up with a net loss of information.
I actually forgot the debate was on tonight. (For some reason I thought it was scheduled for Tuesday.)
I believe I win.
I actually forgot the debate was on tonight. (For some reason I thought it was scheduled for Tuesday.)
I believe I win.
I actually forgot the debate was on tonight. (For some reason I thought it was scheduled for Tuesday.)
I believe I win.
[…]
Instead, let’s simply focus on the brutal reality that after 90 minutes of back and forth, nobody knows anything more about either candidate than he or she knew going in. The format, essentially the same as the one that angered McLuhan so much back during the Bicentennial Year, precludes any sort of meaningful, candidate-driven questioning. The moderator, NBC’s Lester Holt, is a good guy and a decent journalist, but what do we really gain by letting a single journalist write the questions and try to direct traffic? Trump and Clinton talked over each other and ran up and down the alleys of topics like bored kids running up and down the aisles during a Wagner opera.
[…]
Next Time, Make Trump and Clinton – And Johnson and Stein! – Answer Each Other’s Questions: Why do we insist on using the “most stupid arrangement of any debate in the history of debating” for presidential candidates?
[…]
Instead, let’s simply focus on the brutal reality that after 90 minutes of back and forth, nobody knows anything more about either candidate than he or she knew going in. The format, essentially the same as the one that angered McLuhan so much back during the Bicentennial Year, precludes any sort of meaningful, candidate-driven questioning. The moderator, NBC’s Lester Holt, is a good guy and a decent journalist, but what do we really gain by letting a single journalist write the questions and try to direct traffic? Trump and Clinton talked over each other and ran up and down the alleys of topics like bored kids running up and down the aisles during a Wagner opera.
[…]
Next Time, Make Trump and Clinton – And Johnson and Stein! – Answer Each Other’s Questions: Why do we insist on using the “most stupid arrangement of any debate in the history of debating” for presidential candidates?
[…]
Instead, let’s simply focus on the brutal reality that after 90 minutes of back and forth, nobody knows anything more about either candidate than he or she knew going in. The format, essentially the same as the one that angered McLuhan so much back during the Bicentennial Year, precludes any sort of meaningful, candidate-driven questioning. The moderator, NBC’s Lester Holt, is a good guy and a decent journalist, but what do we really gain by letting a single journalist write the questions and try to direct traffic? Trump and Clinton talked over each other and ran up and down the alleys of topics like bored kids running up and down the aisles during a Wagner opera.
[…]
Next Time, Make Trump and Clinton – And Johnson and Stein! – Answer Each Other’s Questions: Why do we insist on using the “most stupid arrangement of any debate in the history of debating” for presidential candidates?
So I didn’t see the debate but the coverage on the BBC is starkly different to here and on reddit, without even a follow-up who win who lost article. Whereas reddit at least points out that 18 out of 20 of CNN’s floating voters gave it to Clinton – alongside a good helping of mockery for the ridiculous things Trump apparently said.
Yet again it seems the BBC goes for “even handed” instead of “impartial”, to everyone’s detriment.
So I didn’t see the debate but the coverage on the BBC is starkly different to here and on reddit, without even a follow-up who win who lost article. Whereas reddit at least points out that 18 out of 20 of CNN’s floating voters gave it to Clinton – alongside a good helping of mockery for the ridiculous things Trump apparently said.
Yet again it seems the BBC goes for “even handed” instead of “impartial”, to everyone’s detriment.
So I didn’t see the debate but the coverage on the BBC is starkly different to here and on reddit, without even a follow-up who win who lost article. Whereas reddit at least points out that 18 out of 20 of CNN’s floating voters gave it to Clinton – alongside a good helping of mockery for the ridiculous things Trump apparently said.
Yet again it seems the BBC goes for “even handed” instead of “impartial”, to everyone’s detriment.
Here I will say, for the record: I bet Trump doesn’t do another debate. He’ll say it’s “rigged”, and refuse. Who’s willing to bet against me?
Here I will say, for the record: I bet Trump doesn’t do another debate. He’ll say it’s “rigged”, and refuse. Who’s willing to bet against me?
Here I will say, for the record: I bet Trump doesn’t do another debate. He’ll say it’s “rigged”, and refuse. Who’s willing to bet against me?
Someone should tell Trump that just because temperment has temper in it, it doesn’t mean it is the same word…
Someone should tell Trump that just because temperment has temper in it, it doesn’t mean it is the same word…
Someone should tell Trump that just because temperment has temper in it, it doesn’t mean it is the same word…
Put the candidates in separate boxes and have a non-partisan jury at hand. Every time a candidate tries to weasel out of properly answering a question the jury can decide to have an angry weasel dropped onto the candidate’s head. In cases where the jury is hung, the weasel gets replaced by a chihuahua. Every tenth time a capybara will be added.
Put the candidates in separate boxes and have a non-partisan jury at hand. Every time a candidate tries to weasel out of properly answering a question the jury can decide to have an angry weasel dropped onto the candidate’s head. In cases where the jury is hung, the weasel gets replaced by a chihuahua. Every tenth time a capybara will be added.
Put the candidates in separate boxes and have a non-partisan jury at hand. Every time a candidate tries to weasel out of properly answering a question the jury can decide to have an angry weasel dropped onto the candidate’s head. In cases where the jury is hung, the weasel gets replaced by a chihuahua. Every tenth time a capybara will be added.
A little late in the day to try rewriting the debate rules, I think.
No real surprises (for which I’m grateful) from last night. Clinton appeared relaxed and healthy; Trump was sniffing enough for Howard Dean to suggest he might have a coke habit.
The only thing of real significance for me was Trump’s use of “those people”. There is (clearly) room for racist demagoguery in US politics at the moment, but when you alienate a third of the population, you’re probably (thank god) not going to win.
A more sophisticated demagogue would have targeted Muslims alone.
A little late in the day to try rewriting the debate rules, I think.
No real surprises (for which I’m grateful) from last night. Clinton appeared relaxed and healthy; Trump was sniffing enough for Howard Dean to suggest he might have a coke habit.
The only thing of real significance for me was Trump’s use of “those people”. There is (clearly) room for racist demagoguery in US politics at the moment, but when you alienate a third of the population, you’re probably (thank god) not going to win.
A more sophisticated demagogue would have targeted Muslims alone.
A little late in the day to try rewriting the debate rules, I think.
No real surprises (for which I’m grateful) from last night. Clinton appeared relaxed and healthy; Trump was sniffing enough for Howard Dean to suggest he might have a coke habit.
The only thing of real significance for me was Trump’s use of “those people”. There is (clearly) room for racist demagoguery in US politics at the moment, but when you alienate a third of the population, you’re probably (thank god) not going to win.
A more sophisticated demagogue would have targeted Muslims alone.
Wj–
If someone refuses, then they are mocked or the format is changed back to the stupid version or whatever, I already acknowledged it was unlikely. We have the debates and candidates and liars we have because this is what we want, but if we cared about airing issues people would demand something better.
Wj–
If someone refuses, then they are mocked or the format is changed back to the stupid version or whatever, I already acknowledged it was unlikely. We have the debates and candidates and liars we have because this is what we want, but if we cared about airing issues people would demand something better.
Wj–
If someone refuses, then they are mocked or the format is changed back to the stupid version or whatever, I already acknowledged it was unlikely. We have the debates and candidates and liars we have because this is what we want, but if we cared about airing issues people would demand something better.
A reasonable way could be found to combine my proposal with hartmut’s. Either would be an improvement over the current system.
A reasonable way could be found to combine my proposal with hartmut’s. Either would be an improvement over the current system.
A reasonable way could be found to combine my proposal with hartmut’s. Either would be an improvement over the current system.
Ok, I have one thing to say. I randomly skimmed the write-ups and didn’t watch a minute of the debate. Here is where coverage goes south in my mind. In two coverage pieces they spent 25% of the words saying that Trump lied about Clinton starting/encouraging the birther crap. Is that really the most important thing discussed last night? Does any non partisan believe she thinks Obama is not American? And then they did such a bad job of even defending her:
That was a defense? The Falcons smoked the Saints in a shootout, New Orleans just cant seem to put a defense on the field either.
Ok, I have one thing to say. I randomly skimmed the write-ups and didn’t watch a minute of the debate. Here is where coverage goes south in my mind. In two coverage pieces they spent 25% of the words saying that Trump lied about Clinton starting/encouraging the birther crap. Is that really the most important thing discussed last night? Does any non partisan believe she thinks Obama is not American? And then they did such a bad job of even defending her:
That was a defense? The Falcons smoked the Saints in a shootout, New Orleans just cant seem to put a defense on the field either.
Ok, I have one thing to say. I randomly skimmed the write-ups and didn’t watch a minute of the debate. Here is where coverage goes south in my mind. In two coverage pieces they spent 25% of the words saying that Trump lied about Clinton starting/encouraging the birther crap. Is that really the most important thing discussed last night? Does any non partisan believe she thinks Obama is not American? And then they did such a bad job of even defending her:
That was a defense? The Falcons smoked the Saints in a shootout, New Orleans just cant seem to put a defense on the field either.
a bad job of even defending her
Clinton is not Blumenthal and didn’t run with Blumenthal’s idea. what’s to defend?
is “aide had a wild idea that didn’t get implemented!” really a damning situation for the boss?
a bad job of even defending her
Clinton is not Blumenthal and didn’t run with Blumenthal’s idea. what’s to defend?
is “aide had a wild idea that didn’t get implemented!” really a damning situation for the boss?
a bad job of even defending her
Clinton is not Blumenthal and didn’t run with Blumenthal’s idea. what’s to defend?
is “aide had a wild idea that didn’t get implemented!” really a damning situation for the boss?
No, but “boss pushes deplorable idea and aides still work to make him president” says something about the aides.
–TP
No, but “boss pushes deplorable idea and aides still work to make him president” says something about the aides.
–TP
No, but “boss pushes deplorable idea and aides still work to make him president” says something about the aides.
–TP
that’s just silly cleek. Blumenthal was one of her closest senior advisors and had people off working on it. he wasn’t some junior staffer that immediately got fired. but that’s not the point, the point is they spent 7 or 8 paragraphs on saying Trump lied about it and the best they came up with was
“but it doesn’t provide clear evidence that the Clinton campaign was “pressing it very hard.”
that’s just silly cleek. Blumenthal was one of her closest senior advisors and had people off working on it. he wasn’t some junior staffer that immediately got fired. but that’s not the point, the point is they spent 7 or 8 paragraphs on saying Trump lied about it and the best they came up with was
“but it doesn’t provide clear evidence that the Clinton campaign was “pressing it very hard.”
that’s just silly cleek. Blumenthal was one of her closest senior advisors and had people off working on it. he wasn’t some junior staffer that immediately got fired. but that’s not the point, the point is they spent 7 or 8 paragraphs on saying Trump lied about it and the best they came up with was
“but it doesn’t provide clear evidence that the Clinton campaign was “pressing it very hard.”
I’ll see your Birthergate, and raise you Snifflegate….
Trump on Fox:
‘there were no sniffles’
‘the mic was faulty on purpose’
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/27/donald_trump_sniffing_sniff.html
I think the American people have a right to know.
I’ll see your Birthergate, and raise you Snifflegate….
Trump on Fox:
‘there were no sniffles’
‘the mic was faulty on purpose’
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/27/donald_trump_sniffing_sniff.html
I think the American people have a right to know.
I’ll see your Birthergate, and raise you Snifflegate….
Trump on Fox:
‘there were no sniffles’
‘the mic was faulty on purpose’
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/27/donald_trump_sniffing_sniff.html
I think the American people have a right to know.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2016/09/i-weep-for-the-future-your-debate-open-thread.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201bb093aeef1970d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201bb093aeef1970d
Reminds me of one side of the debate…
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2016/09/i-weep-for-the-future-your-debate-open-thread.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201bb093aeef1970d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201bb093aeef1970d
Reminds me of one side of the debate…
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2016/09/i-weep-for-the-future-your-debate-open-thread.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201bb093aeef1970d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201bb093aeef1970d
Reminds me of one side of the debate…
everybody’s got a narrative to push, i guess.
everybody’s got a narrative to push, i guess.
everybody’s got a narrative to push, i guess.
oh that’s right… i forgot that Sydney Blumenthal was a “conservative” bete noir.
http://www.breitbart.com/tag/sidney-blumenthal/
oh that’s right… i forgot that Sydney Blumenthal was a “conservative” bete noir.
http://www.breitbart.com/tag/sidney-blumenthal/
oh that’s right… i forgot that Sydney Blumenthal was a “conservative” bete noir.
http://www.breitbart.com/tag/sidney-blumenthal/
yes lj, I lied. cleek, I don’t know Blumenthal from Adam. I’m not sure I knew who he was until THAT ARTICLE told me all about him. Focus. My point was the coverage sucked, it focused on the wrong thing. I’m sure they talked about a lot of things, that shouldn’t have been an important one.
yes lj, I lied. cleek, I don’t know Blumenthal from Adam. I’m not sure I knew who he was until THAT ARTICLE told me all about him. Focus. My point was the coverage sucked, it focused on the wrong thing. I’m sure they talked about a lot of things, that shouldn’t have been an important one.
yes lj, I lied. cleek, I don’t know Blumenthal from Adam. I’m not sure I knew who he was until THAT ARTICLE told me all about him. Focus. My point was the coverage sucked, it focused on the wrong thing. I’m sure they talked about a lot of things, that shouldn’t have been an important one.
“So, Donald, what happens when some candidate simply declines to participate? ”
Vermin Supreme stands in for them.
Note to Trump – “settled with no admission of guilt” is not a strong comeback.
“So, Donald, what happens when some candidate simply declines to participate? ”
Vermin Supreme stands in for them.
Note to Trump – “settled with no admission of guilt” is not a strong comeback.
“So, Donald, what happens when some candidate simply declines to participate? ”
Vermin Supreme stands in for them.
Note to Trump – “settled with no admission of guilt” is not a strong comeback.
where have you gone, joe dimaggio?
where have you gone, joe dimaggio?
where have you gone, joe dimaggio?
Marty,
You have your standards of what’s important to focus on, and I have mine.
He, Trump was Birther in Chief for years, both before and after the Kenyan Usurper released his “long-form” birth certificate. That alone makes He, Trump unfit to be POTUS. I say fitness for office is a biggish deal.
Oh, and: no 1040, no 1600.
–TP
Marty,
You have your standards of what’s important to focus on, and I have mine.
He, Trump was Birther in Chief for years, both before and after the Kenyan Usurper released his “long-form” birth certificate. That alone makes He, Trump unfit to be POTUS. I say fitness for office is a biggish deal.
Oh, and: no 1040, no 1600.
–TP
Marty,
You have your standards of what’s important to focus on, and I have mine.
He, Trump was Birther in Chief for years, both before and after the Kenyan Usurper released his “long-form” birth certificate. That alone makes He, Trump unfit to be POTUS. I say fitness for office is a biggish deal.
Oh, and: no 1040, no 1600.
–TP
And returning to important political issues…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37483869
And returning to important political issues…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37483869
And returning to important political issues…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37483869
i actually wish they could have kept the tone of the first 10 or 15 minutes going – the responses to holt’s first question, about domestic economic conditions.
they were each (in their own ways) articulating a coherent understanding of what needs to happen to improve things.
IMO the issues Trump raises on the economic front, specifically, really do need to be raised and addressed, and because of how corrupt US politics has become it’s hard for anybody who has spent their career in politics to address them.
All of that resonates with a lot of people. There is definitely an ignorant, bigoted, no-nothing constituency among Trump’s supporters, and he knowingly encourages them, which IMO ought to disqualify him from office.
But there are also a hell of a lot of people who hear him talk (with varying degrees of accuracy) about stuff like job flight, and who recognize their own circumstances in what he says.
Unfortunately for them, the person who has stepped up to speak for them is Trump, who is plainly kind of an ass.
I really hope Trump flames out, I really hope Clinton wins, and I really hope that after November people don’t just forget all about the folks who have basically been screwed over by 35 years of Chicago school dogma.
i actually wish they could have kept the tone of the first 10 or 15 minutes going – the responses to holt’s first question, about domestic economic conditions.
they were each (in their own ways) articulating a coherent understanding of what needs to happen to improve things.
IMO the issues Trump raises on the economic front, specifically, really do need to be raised and addressed, and because of how corrupt US politics has become it’s hard for anybody who has spent their career in politics to address them.
All of that resonates with a lot of people. There is definitely an ignorant, bigoted, no-nothing constituency among Trump’s supporters, and he knowingly encourages them, which IMO ought to disqualify him from office.
But there are also a hell of a lot of people who hear him talk (with varying degrees of accuracy) about stuff like job flight, and who recognize their own circumstances in what he says.
Unfortunately for them, the person who has stepped up to speak for them is Trump, who is plainly kind of an ass.
I really hope Trump flames out, I really hope Clinton wins, and I really hope that after November people don’t just forget all about the folks who have basically been screwed over by 35 years of Chicago school dogma.
i actually wish they could have kept the tone of the first 10 or 15 minutes going – the responses to holt’s first question, about domestic economic conditions.
they were each (in their own ways) articulating a coherent understanding of what needs to happen to improve things.
IMO the issues Trump raises on the economic front, specifically, really do need to be raised and addressed, and because of how corrupt US politics has become it’s hard for anybody who has spent their career in politics to address them.
All of that resonates with a lot of people. There is definitely an ignorant, bigoted, no-nothing constituency among Trump’s supporters, and he knowingly encourages them, which IMO ought to disqualify him from office.
But there are also a hell of a lot of people who hear him talk (with varying degrees of accuracy) about stuff like job flight, and who recognize their own circumstances in what he says.
Unfortunately for them, the person who has stepped up to speak for them is Trump, who is plainly kind of an ass.
I really hope Trump flames out, I really hope Clinton wins, and I really hope that after November people don’t just forget all about the folks who have basically been screwed over by 35 years of Chicago school dogma.
My point was the coverage sucked, it focused on the wrong thing.
as always.
fwiw, my 7:53 was in sympathy with your 7:40.
My point was the coverage sucked, it focused on the wrong thing.
as always.
fwiw, my 7:53 was in sympathy with your 7:40.
My point was the coverage sucked, it focused on the wrong thing.
as always.
fwiw, my 7:53 was in sympathy with your 7:40.
I really hope that after November people don’t just forget all about the folks who have basically been screwed over by 35 years of Chicago school dogma.
This hope involves Congress. To the extent that the Executive branch can make policy to lift the economy, it’s done quite well during Obama, and I see no indication that Clinton is working only for the 1%.
I really hope that after November people don’t just forget all about the folks who have basically been screwed over by 35 years of Chicago school dogma.
This hope involves Congress. To the extent that the Executive branch can make policy to lift the economy, it’s done quite well during Obama, and I see no indication that Clinton is working only for the 1%.
I really hope that after November people don’t just forget all about the folks who have basically been screwed over by 35 years of Chicago school dogma.
This hope involves Congress. To the extent that the Executive branch can make policy to lift the economy, it’s done quite well during Obama, and I see no indication that Clinton is working only for the 1%.
“fwiw, my 7:53 was in sympathy with your 7:40.”
Cool, didn’t process that, just read the blumenthal thing.
“as always.”
Yep.
“fwiw, my 7:53 was in sympathy with your 7:40.”
Cool, didn’t process that, just read the blumenthal thing.
“as always.”
Yep.
“fwiw, my 7:53 was in sympathy with your 7:40.”
Cool, didn’t process that, just read the blumenthal thing.
“as always.”
Yep.
My 2 cents…….
Clinton did not effectively rebut Drumph’s opening bit on the loss of jobs. Thankfully, he got distracted….
Note to Trump – “settled with no admission of guilt” is not a strong comeback.
That was a real howler. Clinton didn’t take advantage. Too bad.
I’ll take Dr. Science’s bet. Two more rounds of this derp.
My 2 cents…….
Clinton did not effectively rebut Drumph’s opening bit on the loss of jobs. Thankfully, he got distracted….
Note to Trump – “settled with no admission of guilt” is not a strong comeback.
That was a real howler. Clinton didn’t take advantage. Too bad.
I’ll take Dr. Science’s bet. Two more rounds of this derp.
My 2 cents…….
Clinton did not effectively rebut Drumph’s opening bit on the loss of jobs. Thankfully, he got distracted….
Note to Trump – “settled with no admission of guilt” is not a strong comeback.
That was a real howler. Clinton didn’t take advantage. Too bad.
I’ll take Dr. Science’s bet. Two more rounds of this derp.
So I didn’t watch the debate either but I thought I should probably weigh in and say that it appears that I was wrong in my pre-debate assessment. Perhaps Trump was going after a different demographic than I thought, or perhaps he as a person simply cannot do what it takes to change tone effectively. The latter still surprises me — when you’re in line for the third-biggest job on the planet* then I find it amazing that someone who isn’t generally smart and competent can get to the final 2.
(* Top Gear and Bake Off are still lacking lead presenters)
So I didn’t watch the debate either but I thought I should probably weigh in and say that it appears that I was wrong in my pre-debate assessment. Perhaps Trump was going after a different demographic than I thought, or perhaps he as a person simply cannot do what it takes to change tone effectively. The latter still surprises me — when you’re in line for the third-biggest job on the planet* then I find it amazing that someone who isn’t generally smart and competent can get to the final 2.
(* Top Gear and Bake Off are still lacking lead presenters)
So I didn’t watch the debate either but I thought I should probably weigh in and say that it appears that I was wrong in my pre-debate assessment. Perhaps Trump was going after a different demographic than I thought, or perhaps he as a person simply cannot do what it takes to change tone effectively. The latter still surprises me — when you’re in line for the third-biggest job on the planet* then I find it amazing that someone who isn’t generally smart and competent can get to the final 2.
(* Top Gear and Bake Off are still lacking lead presenters)
My son is in 8th grade. He was kinda-sorta assigned to watch the debate for civics class. He gets up at 6 AM to catch the bus. Spends the day in school. Comes home and does his homework. Goes to soccer practice at 7. Gets home after an hour and half of running and blocking shots over and over again. Takes a shower and eats something. Sits at the kitchen table from which he can see the TV in the family room. He’s asleep with his head on the table after 10 minutes. I’m sure he doesn’t remember a word that was said before he fell asleep … or after, for that matter.
I drank beer.
My son is in 8th grade. He was kinda-sorta assigned to watch the debate for civics class. He gets up at 6 AM to catch the bus. Spends the day in school. Comes home and does his homework. Goes to soccer practice at 7. Gets home after an hour and half of running and blocking shots over and over again. Takes a shower and eats something. Sits at the kitchen table from which he can see the TV in the family room. He’s asleep with his head on the table after 10 minutes. I’m sure he doesn’t remember a word that was said before he fell asleep … or after, for that matter.
I drank beer.
My son is in 8th grade. He was kinda-sorta assigned to watch the debate for civics class. He gets up at 6 AM to catch the bus. Spends the day in school. Comes home and does his homework. Goes to soccer practice at 7. Gets home after an hour and half of running and blocking shots over and over again. Takes a shower and eats something. Sits at the kitchen table from which he can see the TV in the family room. He’s asleep with his head on the table after 10 minutes. I’m sure he doesn’t remember a word that was said before he fell asleep … or after, for that matter.
I drank beer.
Debate, schmebate.
I believe in violence across the board against the Republican Party.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/09/26/how-congress-became-a-basket-case/
Debate, schmebate.
I believe in violence across the board against the Republican Party.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/09/26/how-congress-became-a-basket-case/
Debate, schmebate.
I believe in violence across the board against the Republican Party.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/09/26/how-congress-became-a-basket-case/
I just realized this is just a glitch in the matrix. This can be easily seen when you juxtapose Charlie Sheen’s ‘winning’ from his tigerblood speech with Drumph’s line on having a ‘winning’ temperament.
I just realized this is just a glitch in the matrix. This can be easily seen when you juxtapose Charlie Sheen’s ‘winning’ from his tigerblood speech with Drumph’s line on having a ‘winning’ temperament.
I just realized this is just a glitch in the matrix. This can be easily seen when you juxtapose Charlie Sheen’s ‘winning’ from his tigerblood speech with Drumph’s line on having a ‘winning’ temperament.
OK, I finally watched it (recorded during the night) and haven’t yet heard any of the spin/commentary.
My immediate take is (unsurprisingly) that HRC came across as smart, confident and knowledgeable (all of which she is) and Trump came across as someone who couldn’t answer most questions of substance, and kept reverting to the talking points which gain him big points at his rallies (I’ll do brilliantly, I’m a winner, America is losing big-time and I’ll reverse that and it will be beautiful). His stuff all seemed so very unconvincing to me, but obviously I’m biased. We’ll have to wait and see what if any effect it has on the previously undecided.
Apart from HRC’s failing to capitalise on “I settled with no admission of liability”, I was very disappointed that the moderator didn’t push harder on the fact that Trump kept pushing the birther stuff long after the birth certificate was released. He mentioned it, but it seemed to me it got lost in the shuffle; too bad, because it totally demolishes Trump’s claim that the question was settled with the release of the birth certificate.
Apart from all of this, my favourite takeaway from the whole debate is Hartmut’s inspired, surrealistic weasel suggestion. Somewhere in the multiverse, I hope this is actually happening.
OK, I finally watched it (recorded during the night) and haven’t yet heard any of the spin/commentary.
My immediate take is (unsurprisingly) that HRC came across as smart, confident and knowledgeable (all of which she is) and Trump came across as someone who couldn’t answer most questions of substance, and kept reverting to the talking points which gain him big points at his rallies (I’ll do brilliantly, I’m a winner, America is losing big-time and I’ll reverse that and it will be beautiful). His stuff all seemed so very unconvincing to me, but obviously I’m biased. We’ll have to wait and see what if any effect it has on the previously undecided.
Apart from HRC’s failing to capitalise on “I settled with no admission of liability”, I was very disappointed that the moderator didn’t push harder on the fact that Trump kept pushing the birther stuff long after the birth certificate was released. He mentioned it, but it seemed to me it got lost in the shuffle; too bad, because it totally demolishes Trump’s claim that the question was settled with the release of the birth certificate.
Apart from all of this, my favourite takeaway from the whole debate is Hartmut’s inspired, surrealistic weasel suggestion. Somewhere in the multiverse, I hope this is actually happening.
OK, I finally watched it (recorded during the night) and haven’t yet heard any of the spin/commentary.
My immediate take is (unsurprisingly) that HRC came across as smart, confident and knowledgeable (all of which she is) and Trump came across as someone who couldn’t answer most questions of substance, and kept reverting to the talking points which gain him big points at his rallies (I’ll do brilliantly, I’m a winner, America is losing big-time and I’ll reverse that and it will be beautiful). His stuff all seemed so very unconvincing to me, but obviously I’m biased. We’ll have to wait and see what if any effect it has on the previously undecided.
Apart from HRC’s failing to capitalise on “I settled with no admission of liability”, I was very disappointed that the moderator didn’t push harder on the fact that Trump kept pushing the birther stuff long after the birth certificate was released. He mentioned it, but it seemed to me it got lost in the shuffle; too bad, because it totally demolishes Trump’s claim that the question was settled with the release of the birth certificate.
Apart from all of this, my favourite takeaway from the whole debate is Hartmut’s inspired, surrealistic weasel suggestion. Somewhere in the multiverse, I hope this is actually happening.
“Hartmut’s inspired, surrealistic weasel suggestion”
See, that would TOTALLY get everyone in trouble with PETA. And besides, the weasels shouldn’t just be dropped in a cage, they should be stuffed down their pants.
For myself, I’d prefer to have the debaters strapped to chairs with electrodes attached to their bodies, and fact-checkers administering electric shocks with a voltage proportionate to the magnitude of the lie. A “whopper/shocker” debate, if you will.
Ratings gold, people, RATINGS. GOLD.
“Hartmut’s inspired, surrealistic weasel suggestion”
See, that would TOTALLY get everyone in trouble with PETA. And besides, the weasels shouldn’t just be dropped in a cage, they should be stuffed down their pants.
For myself, I’d prefer to have the debaters strapped to chairs with electrodes attached to their bodies, and fact-checkers administering electric shocks with a voltage proportionate to the magnitude of the lie. A “whopper/shocker” debate, if you will.
Ratings gold, people, RATINGS. GOLD.
“Hartmut’s inspired, surrealistic weasel suggestion”
See, that would TOTALLY get everyone in trouble with PETA. And besides, the weasels shouldn’t just be dropped in a cage, they should be stuffed down their pants.
For myself, I’d prefer to have the debaters strapped to chairs with electrodes attached to their bodies, and fact-checkers administering electric shocks with a voltage proportionate to the magnitude of the lie. A “whopper/shocker” debate, if you will.
Ratings gold, people, RATINGS. GOLD.
I really hope that after November people don’t just forget all about the folks who have basically been screwed over by 35 years of Chicago school dogma.
……..
This hope involves Congress.
Amd there, sapient, is the core of the problem. There is no way that Congress does anything as long as
a) The Republicans continue to refuse to advance anything to a vote which doesn’t have majority support of their party
AND
b) the Republicans retain a majority in the House.
Change either one of those**, and maybe we get something done. Not otherwise. (And changing a) basically requires the Democrats to man up and put some serious effort into state legislative races in 2020. Absent that, they aren’t going to have a real chance to beat the gerrymander.)
** Or have the GOP make, and implement, an internal decision to cast out the nut cases. Which, sadly, I don’t see happening.
I really hope that after November people don’t just forget all about the folks who have basically been screwed over by 35 years of Chicago school dogma.
……..
This hope involves Congress.
Amd there, sapient, is the core of the problem. There is no way that Congress does anything as long as
a) The Republicans continue to refuse to advance anything to a vote which doesn’t have majority support of their party
AND
b) the Republicans retain a majority in the House.
Change either one of those**, and maybe we get something done. Not otherwise. (And changing a) basically requires the Democrats to man up and put some serious effort into state legislative races in 2020. Absent that, they aren’t going to have a real chance to beat the gerrymander.)
** Or have the GOP make, and implement, an internal decision to cast out the nut cases. Which, sadly, I don’t see happening.
I really hope that after November people don’t just forget all about the folks who have basically been screwed over by 35 years of Chicago school dogma.
……..
This hope involves Congress.
Amd there, sapient, is the core of the problem. There is no way that Congress does anything as long as
a) The Republicans continue to refuse to advance anything to a vote which doesn’t have majority support of their party
AND
b) the Republicans retain a majority in the House.
Change either one of those**, and maybe we get something done. Not otherwise. (And changing a) basically requires the Democrats to man up and put some serious effort into state legislative races in 2020. Absent that, they aren’t going to have a real chance to beat the gerrymander.)
** Or have the GOP make, and implement, an internal decision to cast out the nut cases. Which, sadly, I don’t see happening.
GrtNC, I think the best analysis I’ve seen was the guy who suggested that what really threw Trump was the fact that he is accustomed, whenever there is a crowd in sight, to playing off their reactions. And this time, the crowd wasn’t reacting to his usual applause lines. So he started flailing around, and getting more and more over the top, trying to get the reaction that he needs.
It’s the difference between playing to a crowd who already believes, and trying to convince a crowd which doesn’t.
GrtNC, I think the best analysis I’ve seen was the guy who suggested that what really threw Trump was the fact that he is accustomed, whenever there is a crowd in sight, to playing off their reactions. And this time, the crowd wasn’t reacting to his usual applause lines. So he started flailing around, and getting more and more over the top, trying to get the reaction that he needs.
It’s the difference between playing to a crowd who already believes, and trying to convince a crowd which doesn’t.
GrtNC, I think the best analysis I’ve seen was the guy who suggested that what really threw Trump was the fact that he is accustomed, whenever there is a crowd in sight, to playing off their reactions. And this time, the crowd wasn’t reacting to his usual applause lines. So he started flailing around, and getting more and more over the top, trying to get the reaction that he needs.
It’s the difference between playing to a crowd who already believes, and trying to convince a crowd which doesn’t.
I thought Kellyanne Conway this morning looked a bit bloated, especially around the jowls and the love handles, like she’s taking on major carbo ballast, quite broad in the beam it looks to me, and at the same frayed and crinkled around the edges, like she’s been ridden hard and put away wet, don’t you guys think?
If I were this guy …
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/steve-stockman-gop-rep-tweets-release-your-emails-hillary-clinton
… or Scott Baio, I’d wonder out loud about KellyAnne’s bitchhood and cunthood, in that original vermin, subhuman manner of political discourse cultivated lo these many years by the Republican Party and obviously learned from the still unshot-in-the-head Newt Gingrich and his Rasputin, Frank Luntz.
Kellyanne’s pride in Trump not bringing up Bill Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes during this first “debate” was evident. The way she flicked at her lip gloss with her darting little minx tongue as she was being interviewed seem to suggest a certain type of hunger whenever the subject of Bill Clinton comes up, and up.
She probably had to rush to the little girl’s room after the interview to refurbish herself for the bullshit ahead.
I thought Kellyanne Conway this morning looked a bit bloated, especially around the jowls and the love handles, like she’s taking on major carbo ballast, quite broad in the beam it looks to me, and at the same frayed and crinkled around the edges, like she’s been ridden hard and put away wet, don’t you guys think?
If I were this guy …
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/steve-stockman-gop-rep-tweets-release-your-emails-hillary-clinton
… or Scott Baio, I’d wonder out loud about KellyAnne’s bitchhood and cunthood, in that original vermin, subhuman manner of political discourse cultivated lo these many years by the Republican Party and obviously learned from the still unshot-in-the-head Newt Gingrich and his Rasputin, Frank Luntz.
Kellyanne’s pride in Trump not bringing up Bill Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes during this first “debate” was evident. The way she flicked at her lip gloss with her darting little minx tongue as she was being interviewed seem to suggest a certain type of hunger whenever the subject of Bill Clinton comes up, and up.
She probably had to rush to the little girl’s room after the interview to refurbish herself for the bullshit ahead.
I thought Kellyanne Conway this morning looked a bit bloated, especially around the jowls and the love handles, like she’s taking on major carbo ballast, quite broad in the beam it looks to me, and at the same frayed and crinkled around the edges, like she’s been ridden hard and put away wet, don’t you guys think?
If I were this guy …
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/steve-stockman-gop-rep-tweets-release-your-emails-hillary-clinton
… or Scott Baio, I’d wonder out loud about KellyAnne’s bitchhood and cunthood, in that original vermin, subhuman manner of political discourse cultivated lo these many years by the Republican Party and obviously learned from the still unshot-in-the-head Newt Gingrich and his Rasputin, Frank Luntz.
Kellyanne’s pride in Trump not bringing up Bill Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes during this first “debate” was evident. The way she flicked at her lip gloss with her darting little minx tongue as she was being interviewed seem to suggest a certain type of hunger whenever the subject of Bill Clinton comes up, and up.
She probably had to rush to the little girl’s room after the interview to refurbish herself for the bullshit ahead.
One doesn’t have to use real weasels. I like animals myself. Stuffed animals would get the point across and if physical pain is part of the requirement, there are endless possibilities, but I don’t think we want our politics to get uncivilized. Pelting them with cream pies, dunking them in water tanks, and dropping stuffed weasel toys on them would raise the tone of the debate to the proper level.
There were actual moments of substance in this one, but even with two serious candidates it wouldn’t have gotten very far. Clinton was really miffed at how Trump was pointing to her flipflop on TPP, but he’s not the “master persuader” of Scott Adam’s demented manipulative imagination, but a narcisstic child who can’t stay disciplined for more than ten minutes at most.
Trump even pledged no first use on nuclear weapons, though he’s probably forgotten about it by now. He seems to remember his pledge to go back to 19th century Western civilizing ways and outright steal the oil of the places he says he opposes invading. So he’s consistent on some things anyway.
One doesn’t have to use real weasels. I like animals myself. Stuffed animals would get the point across and if physical pain is part of the requirement, there are endless possibilities, but I don’t think we want our politics to get uncivilized. Pelting them with cream pies, dunking them in water tanks, and dropping stuffed weasel toys on them would raise the tone of the debate to the proper level.
There were actual moments of substance in this one, but even with two serious candidates it wouldn’t have gotten very far. Clinton was really miffed at how Trump was pointing to her flipflop on TPP, but he’s not the “master persuader” of Scott Adam’s demented manipulative imagination, but a narcisstic child who can’t stay disciplined for more than ten minutes at most.
Trump even pledged no first use on nuclear weapons, though he’s probably forgotten about it by now. He seems to remember his pledge to go back to 19th century Western civilizing ways and outright steal the oil of the places he says he opposes invading. So he’s consistent on some things anyway.
One doesn’t have to use real weasels. I like animals myself. Stuffed animals would get the point across and if physical pain is part of the requirement, there are endless possibilities, but I don’t think we want our politics to get uncivilized. Pelting them with cream pies, dunking them in water tanks, and dropping stuffed weasel toys on them would raise the tone of the debate to the proper level.
There were actual moments of substance in this one, but even with two serious candidates it wouldn’t have gotten very far. Clinton was really miffed at how Trump was pointing to her flipflop on TPP, but he’s not the “master persuader” of Scott Adam’s demented manipulative imagination, but a narcisstic child who can’t stay disciplined for more than ten minutes at most.
Trump even pledged no first use on nuclear weapons, though he’s probably forgotten about it by now. He seems to remember his pledge to go back to 19th century Western civilizing ways and outright steal the oil of the places he says he opposes invading. So he’s consistent on some things anyway.
How many weasels would fit into the pants? Also the viewers would want to see something and not have to ask a Mae West question.
It would also spoil the booming announcemnt of “Release The Weasel!” followed by the sound of a rattling cage door opening. And in case of Trump the hair must be the first target. Feel free to imagine more variations like different drop heights or the chihuahuas being catapulted into the candidates’ faces.
Btw, I think the seed for the idea for me was a mixture of Orwell’s Room 101 and the anecdote about the Spartan boy and the stolen fox viewed through a Monty Python lense (and the threat of the Falderal guard about angry weasels with crossbows from Kings Quest VII).
How many weasels would fit into the pants? Also the viewers would want to see something and not have to ask a Mae West question.
It would also spoil the booming announcemnt of “Release The Weasel!” followed by the sound of a rattling cage door opening. And in case of Trump the hair must be the first target. Feel free to imagine more variations like different drop heights or the chihuahuas being catapulted into the candidates’ faces.
Btw, I think the seed for the idea for me was a mixture of Orwell’s Room 101 and the anecdote about the Spartan boy and the stolen fox viewed through a Monty Python lense (and the threat of the Falderal guard about angry weasels with crossbows from Kings Quest VII).
How many weasels would fit into the pants? Also the viewers would want to see something and not have to ask a Mae West question.
It would also spoil the booming announcemnt of “Release The Weasel!” followed by the sound of a rattling cage door opening. And in case of Trump the hair must be the first target. Feel free to imagine more variations like different drop heights or the chihuahuas being catapulted into the candidates’ faces.
Btw, I think the seed for the idea for me was a mixture of Orwell’s Room 101 and the anecdote about the Spartan boy and the stolen fox viewed through a Monty Python lense (and the threat of the Falderal guard about angry weasels with crossbows from Kings Quest VII).
Trump repeated that we should have taken the Iraqi oil. And he doesn’t want more foreign entanglements. So how to reconcile those two — assuming, for the sake of discussion, that non-conflicting policies is important.
It occurs to me that Trump may simply not have a clue that the Iraqi oil is still in the ground and has to be pumped. If he thought it was just sitting there (in barrels?) somewhere, well then we could have simply loaded it up and brought it home. You know, like an invading army could grab gold or art works or something. Then it would kind of make sense.
Trump repeated that we should have taken the Iraqi oil. And he doesn’t want more foreign entanglements. So how to reconcile those two — assuming, for the sake of discussion, that non-conflicting policies is important.
It occurs to me that Trump may simply not have a clue that the Iraqi oil is still in the ground and has to be pumped. If he thought it was just sitting there (in barrels?) somewhere, well then we could have simply loaded it up and brought it home. You know, like an invading army could grab gold or art works or something. Then it would kind of make sense.
Trump repeated that we should have taken the Iraqi oil. And he doesn’t want more foreign entanglements. So how to reconcile those two — assuming, for the sake of discussion, that non-conflicting policies is important.
It occurs to me that Trump may simply not have a clue that the Iraqi oil is still in the ground and has to be pumped. If he thought it was just sitting there (in barrels?) somewhere, well then we could have simply loaded it up and brought it home. You know, like an invading army could grab gold or art works or something. Then it would kind of make sense.
Just got this from maddowblog:
Tells one a lot about what journalism has come to, when this can be uttered without getting laughed out of the room.
Just got this from maddowblog:
Tells one a lot about what journalism has come to, when this can be uttered without getting laughed out of the room.
Just got this from maddowblog:
Tells one a lot about what journalism has come to, when this can be uttered without getting laughed out of the room.
“Trump even pledged no first use on nuclear weapons, though he’s probably forgotten about it by now.”
I don’t know, from the bits of the debate I didn’t see, he looked to me as if he had the Presidential “nuclear football’ stowed underneath his podium, he would have called in a thermonuclear strike on Lester Holt’s children.
Then, before the next debate, the Clinton campaign could run ads of live footage of Holt’s kids being incinerated and Trump could get a bump in the polls from the deplorable murderers he appeals to.
“Trump even pledged no first use on nuclear weapons, though he’s probably forgotten about it by now.”
I don’t know, from the bits of the debate I didn’t see, he looked to me as if he had the Presidential “nuclear football’ stowed underneath his podium, he would have called in a thermonuclear strike on Lester Holt’s children.
Then, before the next debate, the Clinton campaign could run ads of live footage of Holt’s kids being incinerated and Trump could get a bump in the polls from the deplorable murderers he appeals to.
“Trump even pledged no first use on nuclear weapons, though he’s probably forgotten about it by now.”
I don’t know, from the bits of the debate I didn’t see, he looked to me as if he had the Presidential “nuclear football’ stowed underneath his podium, he would have called in a thermonuclear strike on Lester Holt’s children.
Then, before the next debate, the Clinton campaign could run ads of live footage of Holt’s kids being incinerated and Trump could get a bump in the polls from the deplorable murderers he appeals to.
“Trump even pledged no first use on nuclear weapons, though he’s probably forgotten about it by now.”
I don’t know, from the bits of the debate I didn’t see, he looked to me as if he had the Presidential “nuclear football’ stowed underneath his podium, he would have called in a thermonuclear strike on Lester Holt’s children.
Then, before the next debate, the Clinton campaign could run ads of live footage of Holt’s kids being incinerated and Trump could get a bump in the polls from the deplorable murderers he appeals to.
“Trump even pledged no first use on nuclear weapons, though he’s probably forgotten about it by now.”
I don’t know, from the bits of the debate I didn’t see, he looked to me as if he had the Presidential “nuclear football’ stowed underneath his podium, he would have called in a thermonuclear strike on Lester Holt’s children.
Then, before the next debate, the Clinton campaign could run ads of live footage of Holt’s kids being incinerated and Trump could get a bump in the polls from the deplorable murderers he appeals to.
“Trump even pledged no first use on nuclear weapons, though he’s probably forgotten about it by now.”
I don’t know, from the bits of the debate I didn’t see, he looked to me as if he had the Presidential “nuclear football’ stowed underneath his podium, he would have called in a thermonuclear strike on Lester Holt’s children.
Then, before the next debate, the Clinton campaign could run ads of live footage of Holt’s kids being incinerated and Trump could get a bump in the polls from the deplorable murderers he appeals to.
i’ve assumed that Trump means we should just annex the Iraqi wells and pipeline routes – declare them US soil. then we can use our big beautiful military to scare anyone who questions us.
i’ve assumed that Trump means we should just annex the Iraqi wells and pipeline routes – declare them US soil. then we can use our big beautiful military to scare anyone who questions us.
i’ve assumed that Trump means we should just annex the Iraqi wells and pipeline routes – declare them US soil. then we can use our big beautiful military to scare anyone who questions us.
I would upgrade from weasels to starving, terror-stricken wolverines.
I would upgrade from weasels to starving, terror-stricken wolverines.
I would upgrade from weasels to starving, terror-stricken wolverines.
Ghouliani is accustomed to thinking of journalists as flatheaded beings on whom he can set his drink as they kneel before him.
Ghouliani is accustomed to thinking of journalists as flatheaded beings on whom he can set his drink as they kneel before him.
Ghouliani is accustomed to thinking of journalists as flatheaded beings on whom he can set his drink as they kneel before him.
Count, again that would go too fast. Another case of instant gratification. They would never even reach the first capybara (those can be lethal btw despite their cute looks).
Count, again that would go too fast. Another case of instant gratification. They would never even reach the first capybara (those can be lethal btw despite their cute looks).
Count, again that would go too fast. Another case of instant gratification. They would never even reach the first capybara (those can be lethal btw despite their cute looks).
Some questions that should have been asked–
https://theintercept.com/liveblogs/firstdebate/the-questions-you-wont-hear-tonight-because-theyre-too-good/
Some questions that should have been asked–
https://theintercept.com/liveblogs/firstdebate/the-questions-you-wont-hear-tonight-because-theyre-too-good/
Some questions that should have been asked–
https://theintercept.com/liveblogs/firstdebate/the-questions-you-wont-hear-tonight-because-theyre-too-good/
he’s not the “master persuader” of Scott Adam’s demented manipulative imagination
LOL.
“Pace and lead” FTW.
he’s not the “master persuader” of Scott Adam’s demented manipulative imagination
LOL.
“Pace and lead” FTW.
he’s not the “master persuader” of Scott Adam’s demented manipulative imagination
LOL.
“Pace and lead” FTW.
Not that I’m going to click on The Intercept, Donald, but it doesn’t really take great policy questions to see pretty quickly what’s at stake here. Unless one of the most urgent issues on your agenda is the weight of Miss Universe.
Not that I’m going to click on The Intercept, Donald, but it doesn’t really take great policy questions to see pretty quickly what’s at stake here. Unless one of the most urgent issues on your agenda is the weight of Miss Universe.
Not that I’m going to click on The Intercept, Donald, but it doesn’t really take great policy questions to see pretty quickly what’s at stake here. Unless one of the most urgent issues on your agenda is the weight of Miss Universe.
from the Intercept link, Q for HRC:
speaking fees – because speakers get paid to speak. look it up.
foundation contributions – for the same reason anyone gives to any charity (aside from the Trump Foundation).
campaign donations – what are you, ten?
from the Intercept link, Q for HRC:
speaking fees – because speakers get paid to speak. look it up.
foundation contributions – for the same reason anyone gives to any charity (aside from the Trump Foundation).
campaign donations – what are you, ten?
from the Intercept link, Q for HRC:
speaking fees – because speakers get paid to speak. look it up.
foundation contributions – for the same reason anyone gives to any charity (aside from the Trump Foundation).
campaign donations – what are you, ten?
(where ‘you’ = whoever asked that question)
(where ‘you’ = whoever asked that question)
(where ‘you’ = whoever asked that question)
cleek, we’ve formalized and institutionalized our nation’s political corruption; putting a fig leaf on top of it doesn’t make it a tree. It’s deeply naive to assume that all that money changes hands with no expectations on either side – it’s naivete on par with and not wholly unrelated to communists or libertarians suggesting their systems of government are well-suited and resilient when implemented by homo sapiens…
—
Does anyone older than this relative young’un have an opinion on whether the debates were better back in the LoWV days, i.e. before my time?
cleek, we’ve formalized and institutionalized our nation’s political corruption; putting a fig leaf on top of it doesn’t make it a tree. It’s deeply naive to assume that all that money changes hands with no expectations on either side – it’s naivete on par with and not wholly unrelated to communists or libertarians suggesting their systems of government are well-suited and resilient when implemented by homo sapiens…
—
Does anyone older than this relative young’un have an opinion on whether the debates were better back in the LoWV days, i.e. before my time?
cleek, we’ve formalized and institutionalized our nation’s political corruption; putting a fig leaf on top of it doesn’t make it a tree. It’s deeply naive to assume that all that money changes hands with no expectations on either side – it’s naivete on par with and not wholly unrelated to communists or libertarians suggesting their systems of government are well-suited and resilient when implemented by homo sapiens…
—
Does anyone older than this relative young’un have an opinion on whether the debates were better back in the LoWV days, i.e. before my time?
evidence is for people who lack sufficient confidence in their hand-waving. sad.
evidence is for people who lack sufficient confidence in their hand-waving. sad.
evidence is for people who lack sufficient confidence in their hand-waving. sad.
…and situations which have been specifically designed to avoid creating evidence are inherently incapable of duplicity. Sad.
…and situations which have been specifically designed to avoid creating evidence are inherently incapable of duplicity. Sad.
…and situations which have been specifically designed to avoid creating evidence are inherently incapable of duplicity. Sad.
Sapient, the questions at the link came from all over. Some came from Amy Davidson at the New Yorker, for instance. None of them were about Yemen (though one should be). Some were aimed at Trump. You would applaud. Some were aimed at Clinton. You would be very sad.
And yeah, Trump pretty much disqualifies himself if he talks for more than ten minutes. He actually scored a good point at the beginning with TPP–I was feeling this weird mixture of satisfaction at Clinton looking uncomfortable with a sick feeling that maybe this guy really could pretend to be serious for 90 minutes. But he soon reverted to form. It was a relief. A truly intelligent maverick could have made Clinton squirm for 90 minutes, but Trump is not that person.
The serious questions were for some alternate universe America where the political process wasn’t a depressing sour joke.
Sapient, the questions at the link came from all over. Some came from Amy Davidson at the New Yorker, for instance. None of them were about Yemen (though one should be). Some were aimed at Trump. You would applaud. Some were aimed at Clinton. You would be very sad.
And yeah, Trump pretty much disqualifies himself if he talks for more than ten minutes. He actually scored a good point at the beginning with TPP–I was feeling this weird mixture of satisfaction at Clinton looking uncomfortable with a sick feeling that maybe this guy really could pretend to be serious for 90 minutes. But he soon reverted to form. It was a relief. A truly intelligent maverick could have made Clinton squirm for 90 minutes, but Trump is not that person.
The serious questions were for some alternate universe America where the political process wasn’t a depressing sour joke.
Sapient, the questions at the link came from all over. Some came from Amy Davidson at the New Yorker, for instance. None of them were about Yemen (though one should be). Some were aimed at Trump. You would applaud. Some were aimed at Clinton. You would be very sad.
And yeah, Trump pretty much disqualifies himself if he talks for more than ten minutes. He actually scored a good point at the beginning with TPP–I was feeling this weird mixture of satisfaction at Clinton looking uncomfortable with a sick feeling that maybe this guy really could pretend to be serious for 90 minutes. But he soon reverted to form. It was a relief. A truly intelligent maverick could have made Clinton squirm for 90 minutes, but Trump is not that person.
The serious questions were for some alternate universe America where the political process wasn’t a depressing sour joke.
Does anyone older than this relative young’un have an opinion on whether the debates were better back in the LoWV days, i.e. before my time?
I don’t particularly consider myself an old’un, but my memory is that every debate I remember had some little twitch or quirk around which the popular wisdom set.
Reagan-Carter I paid for this mic
Dukakis-Bush the rape question
Quayle-Bentsen- you’re no JFK
Bush-clinton- the watch look
Gore-Bush Social Security lockbox
Mondale-Reagan Is he senile?
Those are the ones that come up without googling. The only one that even approaches policy is the SS one.
About TPP, while Trump scored a good zinger, but I don’t think it was a good debate point. It presumes that HRC should have ‘stayed the course’ and not responded to any pressure and the fact that she did is viewed as disqualifying her for office. This seems a bit bizarre. I actually would like a president who is responsive to pressure.
As for my take on the TPP, it seems a lot like healthcare, in that there are so many moving parts and so many stakeholders, and getting one nation to change something like the way they classify something or requiring some standard that is essentially non-standard, so a question like ‘are you for or against TPP’ is, at its heart, a really stupid one IMO.
Does anyone older than this relative young’un have an opinion on whether the debates were better back in the LoWV days, i.e. before my time?
I don’t particularly consider myself an old’un, but my memory is that every debate I remember had some little twitch or quirk around which the popular wisdom set.
Reagan-Carter I paid for this mic
Dukakis-Bush the rape question
Quayle-Bentsen- you’re no JFK
Bush-clinton- the watch look
Gore-Bush Social Security lockbox
Mondale-Reagan Is he senile?
Those are the ones that come up without googling. The only one that even approaches policy is the SS one.
About TPP, while Trump scored a good zinger, but I don’t think it was a good debate point. It presumes that HRC should have ‘stayed the course’ and not responded to any pressure and the fact that she did is viewed as disqualifying her for office. This seems a bit bizarre. I actually would like a president who is responsive to pressure.
As for my take on the TPP, it seems a lot like healthcare, in that there are so many moving parts and so many stakeholders, and getting one nation to change something like the way they classify something or requiring some standard that is essentially non-standard, so a question like ‘are you for or against TPP’ is, at its heart, a really stupid one IMO.
Does anyone older than this relative young’un have an opinion on whether the debates were better back in the LoWV days, i.e. before my time?
I don’t particularly consider myself an old’un, but my memory is that every debate I remember had some little twitch or quirk around which the popular wisdom set.
Reagan-Carter I paid for this mic
Dukakis-Bush the rape question
Quayle-Bentsen- you’re no JFK
Bush-clinton- the watch look
Gore-Bush Social Security lockbox
Mondale-Reagan Is he senile?
Those are the ones that come up without googling. The only one that even approaches policy is the SS one.
About TPP, while Trump scored a good zinger, but I don’t think it was a good debate point. It presumes that HRC should have ‘stayed the course’ and not responded to any pressure and the fact that she did is viewed as disqualifying her for office. This seems a bit bizarre. I actually would like a president who is responsive to pressure.
As for my take on the TPP, it seems a lot like healthcare, in that there are so many moving parts and so many stakeholders, and getting one nation to change something like the way they classify something or requiring some standard that is essentially non-standard, so a question like ‘are you for or against TPP’ is, at its heart, a really stupid one IMO.
Hartmut, you shame me. I had a reasonable classical education (Latin til 18, Ancient Greek til 16) and I didn’t remember the Spartan Boy and the Stolen fox. I must just say, though, that the detail I particularly loved, not for any practical effect but because it had a poetic perfection, was “angry” weasels, and that was all your own. Very worthy of Monty Python, and possibly even (as our critic Clive James used to imply, and as liberal japonicus may be able to confirm) the future format of a Japanese game show.
Hartmut, you shame me. I had a reasonable classical education (Latin til 18, Ancient Greek til 16) and I didn’t remember the Spartan Boy and the Stolen fox. I must just say, though, that the detail I particularly loved, not for any practical effect but because it had a poetic perfection, was “angry” weasels, and that was all your own. Very worthy of Monty Python, and possibly even (as our critic Clive James used to imply, and as liberal japonicus may be able to confirm) the future format of a Japanese game show.
Hartmut, you shame me. I had a reasonable classical education (Latin til 18, Ancient Greek til 16) and I didn’t remember the Spartan Boy and the Stolen fox. I must just say, though, that the detail I particularly loved, not for any practical effect but because it had a poetic perfection, was “angry” weasels, and that was all your own. Very worthy of Monty Python, and possibly even (as our critic Clive James used to imply, and as liberal japonicus may be able to confirm) the future format of a Japanese game show.
Oh oh, just reread Hartmut’s derivation, and saw this “and the threat of the Falderal guard about angry weasels with crossbows from Kings Quest VII”, but since this is absolutely incomprehensible to me, even with further internet research, I am insisting on crediting Hartmut.
Oh oh, just reread Hartmut’s derivation, and saw this “and the threat of the Falderal guard about angry weasels with crossbows from Kings Quest VII”, but since this is absolutely incomprehensible to me, even with further internet research, I am insisting on crediting Hartmut.
Oh oh, just reread Hartmut’s derivation, and saw this “and the threat of the Falderal guard about angry weasels with crossbows from Kings Quest VII”, but since this is absolutely incomprehensible to me, even with further internet research, I am insisting on crediting Hartmut.
Sapient, the questions at the link came from all over. Some came from Amy Davidson at the New Yorker, for instance. None of them were about Yemen (though one should be). Some were aimed at Trump. You would applaud. Some were aimed at Clinton. You would be very sad.
Sounds thrilling. Not going to give Greenwald one click if I can help it,
Sapient, the questions at the link came from all over. Some came from Amy Davidson at the New Yorker, for instance. None of them were about Yemen (though one should be). Some were aimed at Trump. You would applaud. Some were aimed at Clinton. You would be very sad.
Sounds thrilling. Not going to give Greenwald one click if I can help it,
Sapient, the questions at the link came from all over. Some came from Amy Davidson at the New Yorker, for instance. None of them were about Yemen (though one should be). Some were aimed at Trump. You would applaud. Some were aimed at Clinton. You would be very sad.
Sounds thrilling. Not going to give Greenwald one click if I can help it,
…and situations which have been specifically designed to avoid creating evidence are inherently incapable of duplicity. Sad.
that logic was shitty when Bush used it to push the Iraq invasion. it’s shitty now.
…and situations which have been specifically designed to avoid creating evidence are inherently incapable of duplicity. Sad.
that logic was shitty when Bush used it to push the Iraq invasion. it’s shitty now.
…and situations which have been specifically designed to avoid creating evidence are inherently incapable of duplicity. Sad.
that logic was shitty when Bush used it to push the Iraq invasion. it’s shitty now.
If someone were proposing to send people to jail on the assumption that campaign contributions were the equivalent to bribes, with no evidence of quid pro quo, I could accept the Iraq War analogy.
If someone were proposing to send people to jail on the assumption that campaign contributions were the equivalent to bribes, with no evidence of quid pro quo, I could accept the Iraq War analogy.
If someone were proposing to send people to jail on the assumption that campaign contributions were the equivalent to bribes, with no evidence of quid pro quo, I could accept the Iraq War analogy.
The TPP thing goes to her credibility and whether she means it and what changes would have to be made for her to accept it. But these questions should be asked by journalists or other knowledgable people, like Dean Baker ( knowledgable journalists are a rare commodity, at least on debate panels).
Trump, of course, would be quickly exposed on numerous topics by serious questioning– even what little he got on Monday was enough to have him unravel, though some in his fan club seems to have convinced themselves he did okay ( I’ve seen this at another blog). But any Presidential candidate should be raked over the coals. Americans have willingly allowed the two parties to get away with these silly spectacles. It worked out okay Monday in the sense that with someone as ridiculous as Trump any fairminded person should have been able to see his unsuitability for anything besides reality TV, but I suspect a smarter Republican with self discipline could have ” won” that debate. Not so much on issues, but just on zingers. Which is how these things are usually won. Trump was incredibly easy to bait.
On NV’s question above, IMO the debates have always been second rate at best, which is why zingers and spin after they were over is how people determine who won.
Sapient– yeah, the Intercept is full of double plus ungood thinking from your pov.
The TPP thing goes to her credibility and whether she means it and what changes would have to be made for her to accept it. But these questions should be asked by journalists or other knowledgable people, like Dean Baker ( knowledgable journalists are a rare commodity, at least on debate panels).
Trump, of course, would be quickly exposed on numerous topics by serious questioning– even what little he got on Monday was enough to have him unravel, though some in his fan club seems to have convinced themselves he did okay ( I’ve seen this at another blog). But any Presidential candidate should be raked over the coals. Americans have willingly allowed the two parties to get away with these silly spectacles. It worked out okay Monday in the sense that with someone as ridiculous as Trump any fairminded person should have been able to see his unsuitability for anything besides reality TV, but I suspect a smarter Republican with self discipline could have ” won” that debate. Not so much on issues, but just on zingers. Which is how these things are usually won. Trump was incredibly easy to bait.
On NV’s question above, IMO the debates have always been second rate at best, which is why zingers and spin after they were over is how people determine who won.
Sapient– yeah, the Intercept is full of double plus ungood thinking from your pov.
The TPP thing goes to her credibility and whether she means it and what changes would have to be made for her to accept it. But these questions should be asked by journalists or other knowledgable people, like Dean Baker ( knowledgable journalists are a rare commodity, at least on debate panels).
Trump, of course, would be quickly exposed on numerous topics by serious questioning– even what little he got on Monday was enough to have him unravel, though some in his fan club seems to have convinced themselves he did okay ( I’ve seen this at another blog). But any Presidential candidate should be raked over the coals. Americans have willingly allowed the two parties to get away with these silly spectacles. It worked out okay Monday in the sense that with someone as ridiculous as Trump any fairminded person should have been able to see his unsuitability for anything besides reality TV, but I suspect a smarter Republican with self discipline could have ” won” that debate. Not so much on issues, but just on zingers. Which is how these things are usually won. Trump was incredibly easy to bait.
On NV’s question above, IMO the debates have always been second rate at best, which is why zingers and spin after they were over is how people determine who won.
Sapient– yeah, the Intercept is full of double plus ungood thinking from your pov.
Tell me, cleek: do revolving-door policies in regulatory institutions arise for no reason besides the former bureaucrats having relevant job skills? Also, same question but with former legislators and lobbyists.
Why on earth do we have laws demanding financial conflict-of-interest disclosures? So long as the government agent is not being directly bribed in a quid pro quo arrangement, there can’t be corruption, right?
Is regulatory capture even possible absent explicit (illegal) bribes? Or is it possible – and try to stay with me on this, it’s a pretty complicated line of thought – that actors (even the ones who aren’t Republicans!) are not just self-interested, but are also capable of adapting to circumvent obstacles when direct means of achieving advantageous outcomes are forbidden?
Complaining that rules have huge blind spots allowing de facto quid pro quo to be masked under one fig leaf or another is as much a complaint about the rules as the individuals creating the appearance of corruption despite a lack of evidence of lawbreaking. Raising questions about actors who have benefited greatly from actions within those blind spots is not an accusation of criminal wrongdoing, it’s a criticism of an appearance of gaming the rules for one’s own benefit and a question of their impartiality in the presence of an apparent financial conflict of interest.
Of course, this all sets aside the utter absurdity of needing to raise all of the above when the question you found so very, very objectionable explicitly allowed your infallible candidate to explain why there was no reason to view these behaviors as conflicts of interest…
Tell me, cleek: do revolving-door policies in regulatory institutions arise for no reason besides the former bureaucrats having relevant job skills? Also, same question but with former legislators and lobbyists.
Why on earth do we have laws demanding financial conflict-of-interest disclosures? So long as the government agent is not being directly bribed in a quid pro quo arrangement, there can’t be corruption, right?
Is regulatory capture even possible absent explicit (illegal) bribes? Or is it possible – and try to stay with me on this, it’s a pretty complicated line of thought – that actors (even the ones who aren’t Republicans!) are not just self-interested, but are also capable of adapting to circumvent obstacles when direct means of achieving advantageous outcomes are forbidden?
Complaining that rules have huge blind spots allowing de facto quid pro quo to be masked under one fig leaf or another is as much a complaint about the rules as the individuals creating the appearance of corruption despite a lack of evidence of lawbreaking. Raising questions about actors who have benefited greatly from actions within those blind spots is not an accusation of criminal wrongdoing, it’s a criticism of an appearance of gaming the rules for one’s own benefit and a question of their impartiality in the presence of an apparent financial conflict of interest.
Of course, this all sets aside the utter absurdity of needing to raise all of the above when the question you found so very, very objectionable explicitly allowed your infallible candidate to explain why there was no reason to view these behaviors as conflicts of interest…
Tell me, cleek: do revolving-door policies in regulatory institutions arise for no reason besides the former bureaucrats having relevant job skills? Also, same question but with former legislators and lobbyists.
Why on earth do we have laws demanding financial conflict-of-interest disclosures? So long as the government agent is not being directly bribed in a quid pro quo arrangement, there can’t be corruption, right?
Is regulatory capture even possible absent explicit (illegal) bribes? Or is it possible – and try to stay with me on this, it’s a pretty complicated line of thought – that actors (even the ones who aren’t Republicans!) are not just self-interested, but are also capable of adapting to circumvent obstacles when direct means of achieving advantageous outcomes are forbidden?
Complaining that rules have huge blind spots allowing de facto quid pro quo to be masked under one fig leaf or another is as much a complaint about the rules as the individuals creating the appearance of corruption despite a lack of evidence of lawbreaking. Raising questions about actors who have benefited greatly from actions within those blind spots is not an accusation of criminal wrongdoing, it’s a criticism of an appearance of gaming the rules for one’s own benefit and a question of their impartiality in the presence of an apparent financial conflict of interest.
Of course, this all sets aside the utter absurdity of needing to raise all of the above when the question you found so very, very objectionable explicitly allowed your infallible candidate to explain why there was no reason to view these behaviors as conflicts of interest…
It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons. I don’t understand some of the details of the argument though.
I’d love to have a discussion about how the Clintons have pushed the boundaries on corruption that isn’t against the laws written by politicians who want to be able to take in lots of money, but we can’t do that while Trump is her foil
It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons. I don’t understand some of the details of the argument though.
I’d love to have a discussion about how the Clintons have pushed the boundaries on corruption that isn’t against the laws written by politicians who want to be able to take in lots of money, but we can’t do that while Trump is her foil
It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons. I don’t understand some of the details of the argument though.
I’d love to have a discussion about how the Clintons have pushed the boundaries on corruption that isn’t against the laws written by politicians who want to be able to take in lots of money, but we can’t do that while Trump is her foil
Hmmm. I meant ‘see the’ but seethe is pretty good for a fat finger mistake.
Hmmm. I meant ‘see the’ but seethe is pretty good for a fat finger mistake.
Hmmm. I meant ‘see the’ but seethe is pretty good for a fat finger mistake.
One thing that ought to be more widely mocked is Trumps’ crybaby response to the debate.
“My mike was defective.”
“Holt was unfair.”
“The sun was in my eyes.”
etc.
One thing that ought to be more widely mocked is Trumps’ crybaby response to the debate.
“My mike was defective.”
“Holt was unfair.”
“The sun was in my eyes.”
etc.
One thing that ought to be more widely mocked is Trumps’ crybaby response to the debate.
“My mike was defective.”
“Holt was unfair.”
“The sun was in my eyes.”
etc.
It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons.
I wouldn’t make that particular argument. My basis for voting for Clinton isn’t that she’s a perfect paragon of virtue. She’s certainly within the universe of reasonable options for a presidential candidate, unlike her opponent.
I would even go further to say that, to the extent that I don’t like some of the money that’s come her way, I’d like to see some sort of prohibition on that sort of thing – for everyone, not just her.
Somehow, that doesn’t prevent from voting for her over DONALD F**KING TRUMP!!!
It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons.
I wouldn’t make that particular argument. My basis for voting for Clinton isn’t that she’s a perfect paragon of virtue. She’s certainly within the universe of reasonable options for a presidential candidate, unlike her opponent.
I would even go further to say that, to the extent that I don’t like some of the money that’s come her way, I’d like to see some sort of prohibition on that sort of thing – for everyone, not just her.
Somehow, that doesn’t prevent from voting for her over DONALD F**KING TRUMP!!!
It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons.
I wouldn’t make that particular argument. My basis for voting for Clinton isn’t that she’s a perfect paragon of virtue. She’s certainly within the universe of reasonable options for a presidential candidate, unlike her opponent.
I would even go further to say that, to the extent that I don’t like some of the money that’s come her way, I’d like to see some sort of prohibition on that sort of thing – for everyone, not just her.
Somehow, that doesn’t prevent from voting for her over DONALD F**KING TRUMP!!!
“It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons.”
As soon as we see that argument, let the seething begin. If the argument exists, I suspect it’s a bookend to the argument that all political bribery is legal free speech, even anonymous donations picked up by couriers at unmarked drop boxes, except when the Clintons are on the receiving end of it.
Regarding regulatory capture, are we equating, say, the Koch Brothers bribery of conservative politicians to hamstring, block, defund, get rid of, threaten, and harass regulatory agencies to cause them to not enforce environmental laws, with, I don’t know, the Sierra Club’s political donations to politicians who then request that the regulatory agencies please carry out the letter of the laws as written?
Are both of those behaviors corrupt?
IMHO, by the way, the prime reason we see interests pushing to gut federal regulatory measures and claim that those regulatory regimes, if they are even permitted to exist at all, should be pushed down to the state and local levels, is because the monied interests know it is much easier and probably cheaper to bribe and own regulators at the state and local levels.
In fact, I suspect some industries, not all by any means, are irate that some federal regulators are impervious to regulatory capture, (though I know it is a problem) while their more local counterparts are pushovers.
“It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons.”
As soon as we see that argument, let the seething begin. If the argument exists, I suspect it’s a bookend to the argument that all political bribery is legal free speech, even anonymous donations picked up by couriers at unmarked drop boxes, except when the Clintons are on the receiving end of it.
Regarding regulatory capture, are we equating, say, the Koch Brothers bribery of conservative politicians to hamstring, block, defund, get rid of, threaten, and harass regulatory agencies to cause them to not enforce environmental laws, with, I don’t know, the Sierra Club’s political donations to politicians who then request that the regulatory agencies please carry out the letter of the laws as written?
Are both of those behaviors corrupt?
IMHO, by the way, the prime reason we see interests pushing to gut federal regulatory measures and claim that those regulatory regimes, if they are even permitted to exist at all, should be pushed down to the state and local levels, is because the monied interests know it is much easier and probably cheaper to bribe and own regulators at the state and local levels.
In fact, I suspect some industries, not all by any means, are irate that some federal regulators are impervious to regulatory capture, (though I know it is a problem) while their more local counterparts are pushovers.
“It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons.”
As soon as we see that argument, let the seething begin. If the argument exists, I suspect it’s a bookend to the argument that all political bribery is legal free speech, even anonymous donations picked up by couriers at unmarked drop boxes, except when the Clintons are on the receiving end of it.
Regarding regulatory capture, are we equating, say, the Koch Brothers bribery of conservative politicians to hamstring, block, defund, get rid of, threaten, and harass regulatory agencies to cause them to not enforce environmental laws, with, I don’t know, the Sierra Club’s political donations to politicians who then request that the regulatory agencies please carry out the letter of the laws as written?
Are both of those behaviors corrupt?
IMHO, by the way, the prime reason we see interests pushing to gut federal regulatory measures and claim that those regulatory regimes, if they are even permitted to exist at all, should be pushed down to the state and local levels, is because the monied interests know it is much easier and probably cheaper to bribe and own regulators at the state and local levels.
In fact, I suspect some industries, not all by any means, are irate that some federal regulators are impervious to regulatory capture, (though I know it is a problem) while their more local counterparts are pushovers.
As an old ‘un, I can attest as an eye witness that the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1859-60 were substantive, detailed, compelling, and riveting.
Then Americans went out and slaughtered each other en masse, so maybe we should be happy that modern debates are content-free, bullshit sessions that get to the bottom of nothing.
As an old ‘un, I can attest as an eye witness that the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1859-60 were substantive, detailed, compelling, and riveting.
Then Americans went out and slaughtered each other en masse, so maybe we should be happy that modern debates are content-free, bullshit sessions that get to the bottom of nothing.
As an old ‘un, I can attest as an eye witness that the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1859-60 were substantive, detailed, compelling, and riveting.
Then Americans went out and slaughtered each other en masse, so maybe we should be happy that modern debates are content-free, bullshit sessions that get to the bottom of nothing.
To wit:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/republicans-pretend-they-want-more-powerful-bank-oversight
To wit:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/republicans-pretend-they-want-more-powerful-bank-oversight
To wit:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/republicans-pretend-they-want-more-powerful-bank-oversight
NV: prove the corruption.
you seem so very very very confident it exists. so, share your proof with the rest of us.
NV: prove the corruption.
you seem so very very very confident it exists. so, share your proof with the rest of us.
NV: prove the corruption.
you seem so very very very confident it exists. so, share your proof with the rest of us.
This boggles my unboggable mind:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/fbi-now-pretty-sure-russia-behind-anti-clinton-hacking
The Republican Party and the Kremlin under thug Putin work in concert, illegally, to thwart the Clinton campaign and subvert an American Presidential campaign.
She must be something. What are the common interests of Republicans and Putin’s murderous regime? Does Putin hate Obamacare too?
As one who grew up in a country where half the filth here accused all liberals all my life, most notably Martin Luther King, of being Soviet agents, this is REALLY something.
Kill, and kill, and never stop killing.
This boggles my unboggable mind:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/fbi-now-pretty-sure-russia-behind-anti-clinton-hacking
The Republican Party and the Kremlin under thug Putin work in concert, illegally, to thwart the Clinton campaign and subvert an American Presidential campaign.
She must be something. What are the common interests of Republicans and Putin’s murderous regime? Does Putin hate Obamacare too?
As one who grew up in a country where half the filth here accused all liberals all my life, most notably Martin Luther King, of being Soviet agents, this is REALLY something.
Kill, and kill, and never stop killing.
This boggles my unboggable mind:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/fbi-now-pretty-sure-russia-behind-anti-clinton-hacking
The Republican Party and the Kremlin under thug Putin work in concert, illegally, to thwart the Clinton campaign and subvert an American Presidential campaign.
She must be something. What are the common interests of Republicans and Putin’s murderous regime? Does Putin hate Obamacare too?
As one who grew up in a country where half the filth here accused all liberals all my life, most notably Martin Luther King, of being Soviet agents, this is REALLY something.
Kill, and kill, and never stop killing.
It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons. I don’t understand some of the details of the argument though.
who is making that argument?
people are asserting Clinton is corrupt. when i ask for evidence, i get hand-waving. when i say that’s not proof, i get more hand-waving. all i want is for the people making the assertion to back it up with evidence.
or maybe we should go back to that sub-thread about how some people’s politics are simply religion while other people’s politics are objective and honest.
It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons. I don’t understand some of the details of the argument though.
who is making that argument?
people are asserting Clinton is corrupt. when i ask for evidence, i get hand-waving. when i say that’s not proof, i get more hand-waving. all i want is for the people making the assertion to back it up with evidence.
or maybe we should go back to that sub-thread about how some people’s politics are simply religion while other people’s politics are objective and honest.
It is interesting to seethe argument that money is corrosive in politics except when the money comes to the Clintons. I don’t understand some of the details of the argument though.
who is making that argument?
people are asserting Clinton is corrupt. when i ask for evidence, i get hand-waving. when i say that’s not proof, i get more hand-waving. all i want is for the people making the assertion to back it up with evidence.
or maybe we should go back to that sub-thread about how some people’s politics are simply religion while other people’s politics are objective and honest.
It’s always interesting to see, in the first couple of days after the debate, what bits that seemed to slide right by at the time turn out to be the critical ones. From what I’m seeing, we’re getting one non-surprise and one surprise from Monday’s debate:
The non-surprise: Trump’s taxes are getting a lot of play. Driven by the fact that he seemed to say that he does, indeed, end up paying no Federal income tax. Which only gives resonance to the existing calls for him to release his returns.
He may be avoiding all taxes entirely within the law. But telling folks who do pay that not paying makes him smart doesn’t seem like a vote winner — who likes to be told that they are stupid because they pay taxes? And most of us do.
The surprise: Miss Universe. If Trump were smart, this would be a throw-away line from Clinton which would have been forgotten in 24 hours.
But instead, he has been going out of his way to make statements which assure that Latinos, and especially women, keep getting reminded about just how shallow his view of them is. The Clinton campaign couldn’t have gotten a better response from him if they had scripted it themselves.
It’s always interesting to see, in the first couple of days after the debate, what bits that seemed to slide right by at the time turn out to be the critical ones. From what I’m seeing, we’re getting one non-surprise and one surprise from Monday’s debate:
The non-surprise: Trump’s taxes are getting a lot of play. Driven by the fact that he seemed to say that he does, indeed, end up paying no Federal income tax. Which only gives resonance to the existing calls for him to release his returns.
He may be avoiding all taxes entirely within the law. But telling folks who do pay that not paying makes him smart doesn’t seem like a vote winner — who likes to be told that they are stupid because they pay taxes? And most of us do.
The surprise: Miss Universe. If Trump were smart, this would be a throw-away line from Clinton which would have been forgotten in 24 hours.
But instead, he has been going out of his way to make statements which assure that Latinos, and especially women, keep getting reminded about just how shallow his view of them is. The Clinton campaign couldn’t have gotten a better response from him if they had scripted it themselves.
It’s always interesting to see, in the first couple of days after the debate, what bits that seemed to slide right by at the time turn out to be the critical ones. From what I’m seeing, we’re getting one non-surprise and one surprise from Monday’s debate:
The non-surprise: Trump’s taxes are getting a lot of play. Driven by the fact that he seemed to say that he does, indeed, end up paying no Federal income tax. Which only gives resonance to the existing calls for him to release his returns.
He may be avoiding all taxes entirely within the law. But telling folks who do pay that not paying makes him smart doesn’t seem like a vote winner — who likes to be told that they are stupid because they pay taxes? And most of us do.
The surprise: Miss Universe. If Trump were smart, this would be a throw-away line from Clinton which would have been forgotten in 24 hours.
But instead, he has been going out of his way to make statements which assure that Latinos, and especially women, keep getting reminded about just how shallow his view of them is. The Clinton campaign couldn’t have gotten a better response from him if they had scripted it themselves.
Democracy Now (Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez) interviewed Arlie Hochschild, the sociologist who wrote the new book on the Louisiana tea party people. Here’s the interview–
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/28/what_drives_trump_supporters_sociologist_arlie
Democracy Now (Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez) interviewed Arlie Hochschild, the sociologist who wrote the new book on the Louisiana tea party people. Here’s the interview–
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/28/what_drives_trump_supporters_sociologist_arlie
Democracy Now (Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez) interviewed Arlie Hochschild, the sociologist who wrote the new book on the Louisiana tea party people. Here’s the interview–
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/28/what_drives_trump_supporters_sociologist_arlie
On money and stances on issues, I would guess that Clinton’s stance on Israel and the BDS movement has some connection with the fact that her biggest donor coincidentally has exactly the same position she has on that subject. It’s possible this is a coincidence and nothing like this ever happens except by coincidence.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2158218-hillary-clintons-letter-to-haim-saban-against-bds.html
http://forward.com/news/israel/321793/haim-saban-dumps-pro-israel-coalition-over-sheldon-adelsons-far-right-wing/
Seriously, do people really think rich donors in both parties don’t have some sort of influence? I know about this particular case because I follow the I-P conflict.
Alternatively, of course, it could be the case that the only politicians who get anywhere are those whose sincerely felt beliefs arrived completely independent from what billionaires might feel happen to line up with the views of billionaires. It would be a sort of Darwinian process–those poor fools who don’t agree with the views of some rich prospective donor never get far. But I’m going to hazard a guess and say there’s some interplay involved.
On money and stances on issues, I would guess that Clinton’s stance on Israel and the BDS movement has some connection with the fact that her biggest donor coincidentally has exactly the same position she has on that subject. It’s possible this is a coincidence and nothing like this ever happens except by coincidence.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2158218-hillary-clintons-letter-to-haim-saban-against-bds.html
http://forward.com/news/israel/321793/haim-saban-dumps-pro-israel-coalition-over-sheldon-adelsons-far-right-wing/
Seriously, do people really think rich donors in both parties don’t have some sort of influence? I know about this particular case because I follow the I-P conflict.
Alternatively, of course, it could be the case that the only politicians who get anywhere are those whose sincerely felt beliefs arrived completely independent from what billionaires might feel happen to line up with the views of billionaires. It would be a sort of Darwinian process–those poor fools who don’t agree with the views of some rich prospective donor never get far. But I’m going to hazard a guess and say there’s some interplay involved.
On money and stances on issues, I would guess that Clinton’s stance on Israel and the BDS movement has some connection with the fact that her biggest donor coincidentally has exactly the same position she has on that subject. It’s possible this is a coincidence and nothing like this ever happens except by coincidence.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2158218-hillary-clintons-letter-to-haim-saban-against-bds.html
http://forward.com/news/israel/321793/haim-saban-dumps-pro-israel-coalition-over-sheldon-adelsons-far-right-wing/
Seriously, do people really think rich donors in both parties don’t have some sort of influence? I know about this particular case because I follow the I-P conflict.
Alternatively, of course, it could be the case that the only politicians who get anywhere are those whose sincerely felt beliefs arrived completely independent from what billionaires might feel happen to line up with the views of billionaires. It would be a sort of Darwinian process–those poor fools who don’t agree with the views of some rich prospective donor never get far. But I’m going to hazard a guess and say there’s some interplay involved.
More on Saban–
http://forward.com/opinion/national/325490/does-hillary-clinton-have-a-haim-saban-problem/
Note that in Hillary’s defense she doesn’t line up with Saban on every issue, but on the other hand, if she did she’d have to run as Donald Trump. On an obscure issue that won’t hurt her except with extreme lefties, one issue voters, people who obsessively follow this issue, and other loons, she adopts his views.
More on Saban–
http://forward.com/opinion/national/325490/does-hillary-clinton-have-a-haim-saban-problem/
Note that in Hillary’s defense she doesn’t line up with Saban on every issue, but on the other hand, if she did she’d have to run as Donald Trump. On an obscure issue that won’t hurt her except with extreme lefties, one issue voters, people who obsessively follow this issue, and other loons, she adopts his views.
More on Saban–
http://forward.com/opinion/national/325490/does-hillary-clinton-have-a-haim-saban-problem/
Note that in Hillary’s defense she doesn’t line up with Saban on every issue, but on the other hand, if she did she’d have to run as Donald Trump. On an obscure issue that won’t hurt her except with extreme lefties, one issue voters, people who obsessively follow this issue, and other loons, she adopts his views.
England’s men’s senior football manager has just been dismissed after 67 days and a single game in charge over allegations of corruption stemming from a revised conversation with undercover journalists in which he agreed, essentially, to trade £400k in speaking fees to a fictional Far East company in exchange for his inside knowledge on how to avoid 3rd party ownership rules (3rd party ownership of football players being not much better than slavery, apparently).
Tell me again what Goldman Sachs paid Clinton for speaking fees? How much do you think access to the ear (and brain) of a senior US politician is worth…?
Tony Blair is widely regarded as corrupt in the UK for taking huge speaking fees on the lecture circuit. Sure, some people are paying something for the prestige, but they’re also paying for access.
There was another scandal in the UK many years ago in which MPs (from both sides iirc) were caught in a similar sting offering to ask questions in the house of commons in exchange for money. Those MPs were duly sanctioned.
I sincerely hope Clinton wins this election, by a mile. Politicians talking to people for large amounts of money is corruption where I come from. Shame it doesn’t seem to be over the Atlantic.
England’s men’s senior football manager has just been dismissed after 67 days and a single game in charge over allegations of corruption stemming from a revised conversation with undercover journalists in which he agreed, essentially, to trade £400k in speaking fees to a fictional Far East company in exchange for his inside knowledge on how to avoid 3rd party ownership rules (3rd party ownership of football players being not much better than slavery, apparently).
Tell me again what Goldman Sachs paid Clinton for speaking fees? How much do you think access to the ear (and brain) of a senior US politician is worth…?
Tony Blair is widely regarded as corrupt in the UK for taking huge speaking fees on the lecture circuit. Sure, some people are paying something for the prestige, but they’re also paying for access.
There was another scandal in the UK many years ago in which MPs (from both sides iirc) were caught in a similar sting offering to ask questions in the house of commons in exchange for money. Those MPs were duly sanctioned.
I sincerely hope Clinton wins this election, by a mile. Politicians talking to people for large amounts of money is corruption where I come from. Shame it doesn’t seem to be over the Atlantic.
England’s men’s senior football manager has just been dismissed after 67 days and a single game in charge over allegations of corruption stemming from a revised conversation with undercover journalists in which he agreed, essentially, to trade £400k in speaking fees to a fictional Far East company in exchange for his inside knowledge on how to avoid 3rd party ownership rules (3rd party ownership of football players being not much better than slavery, apparently).
Tell me again what Goldman Sachs paid Clinton for speaking fees? How much do you think access to the ear (and brain) of a senior US politician is worth…?
Tony Blair is widely regarded as corrupt in the UK for taking huge speaking fees on the lecture circuit. Sure, some people are paying something for the prestige, but they’re also paying for access.
There was another scandal in the UK many years ago in which MPs (from both sides iirc) were caught in a similar sting offering to ask questions in the house of commons in exchange for money. Those MPs were duly sanctioned.
I sincerely hope Clinton wins this election, by a mile. Politicians talking to people for large amounts of money is corruption where I come from. Shame it doesn’t seem to be over the Atlantic.
I would guess that Clinton’s stance on Israel and the BDS movement has some connection with the fact that her biggest donor coincidentally has exactly the same position she has on that subject.
The challenge is to establish with any certainty which way causality runs. Does the politician reflect the views of the big donor? Or does the big donor give to a politician who reflects the donor’s views?
I would guess that Clinton’s stance on Israel and the BDS movement has some connection with the fact that her biggest donor coincidentally has exactly the same position she has on that subject.
The challenge is to establish with any certainty which way causality runs. Does the politician reflect the views of the big donor? Or does the big donor give to a politician who reflects the donor’s views?
I would guess that Clinton’s stance on Israel and the BDS movement has some connection with the fact that her biggest donor coincidentally has exactly the same position she has on that subject.
The challenge is to establish with any certainty which way causality runs. Does the politician reflect the views of the big donor? Or does the big donor give to a politician who reflects the donor’s views?
Cleek I haven’t seen a non-corrupt explanation for how Chicago Securities trader and big Clinton Foundation donor Rajiv K. Fernando ended up on the International Security Advisory Board. see ABC report here.
Later we found out that he requested to be on the board and that his Top Secret clearance was fast-tracked despite staffer’s concerns about his experience for the board.
I’m pretty sure similarly qualified (is that the right word?) Chicago trading CEOs would have difficulty getting Clinton’s staff to push them on to the board if they weren’t big donors.
Cleek I haven’t seen a non-corrupt explanation for how Chicago Securities trader and big Clinton Foundation donor Rajiv K. Fernando ended up on the International Security Advisory Board. see ABC report here.
Later we found out that he requested to be on the board and that his Top Secret clearance was fast-tracked despite staffer’s concerns about his experience for the board.
I’m pretty sure similarly qualified (is that the right word?) Chicago trading CEOs would have difficulty getting Clinton’s staff to push them on to the board if they weren’t big donors.
Cleek I haven’t seen a non-corrupt explanation for how Chicago Securities trader and big Clinton Foundation donor Rajiv K. Fernando ended up on the International Security Advisory Board. see ABC report here.
Later we found out that he requested to be on the board and that his Top Secret clearance was fast-tracked despite staffer’s concerns about his experience for the board.
I’m pretty sure similarly qualified (is that the right word?) Chicago trading CEOs would have difficulty getting Clinton’s staff to push them on to the board if they weren’t big donors.
(To add a little strength to the analogy, Allardyce was widely regarded as the best man for the job…)
(To add a little strength to the analogy, Allardyce was widely regarded as the best man for the job…)
(To add a little strength to the analogy, Allardyce was widely regarded as the best man for the job…)
Seriously, do people really think rich donors in both parties don’t have some sort of influence?
i don’t think that.
it’s probably safe to assume all politicians are guilty of some amount of corruption; hell, even Bernie Sanders has some seriously sketchy financial stuff surrounding him and his family – but he’s held up as a model politician by Clinton’s leftward detractors. what is different with Clinton is that the amount of accusation far exceeds the amount of evidence. her corruption has become a matter of faith by her enemies.
Seriously, do people really think rich donors in both parties don’t have some sort of influence?
i don’t think that.
it’s probably safe to assume all politicians are guilty of some amount of corruption; hell, even Bernie Sanders has some seriously sketchy financial stuff surrounding him and his family – but he’s held up as a model politician by Clinton’s leftward detractors. what is different with Clinton is that the amount of accusation far exceeds the amount of evidence. her corruption has become a matter of faith by her enemies.
Seriously, do people really think rich donors in both parties don’t have some sort of influence?
i don’t think that.
it’s probably safe to assume all politicians are guilty of some amount of corruption; hell, even Bernie Sanders has some seriously sketchy financial stuff surrounding him and his family – but he’s held up as a model politician by Clinton’s leftward detractors. what is different with Clinton is that the amount of accusation far exceeds the amount of evidence. her corruption has become a matter of faith by her enemies.
Saban has a lot of influence, apparently. The New Yorker wrote a piece about him. Obviously there is nothing about the guy that would make him influential, except for the fact that he is rich and gives a lot of money to politicians. Otherwise why would anyone take his calls? In another article I didn’t link at the Forward, he boasts that he can call Hillary whenever he wants.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/05/10/the-influencer
Are the Clintons worse than others? I don’t know–I don’t follow this issue that closely in general. They are awfully rich. (I follow I-P, so I’ve heard about Adelson in the Republican Party and Saban in the Democratic Party.) But the general issue is corruption, the influence of rich people and also the revolving door between lobbying groups and government and I think because Clinton is the candidate people on the Democratic side have been raising the bar on what constitutes a problem.
Saban has a lot of influence, apparently. The New Yorker wrote a piece about him. Obviously there is nothing about the guy that would make him influential, except for the fact that he is rich and gives a lot of money to politicians. Otherwise why would anyone take his calls? In another article I didn’t link at the Forward, he boasts that he can call Hillary whenever he wants.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/05/10/the-influencer
Are the Clintons worse than others? I don’t know–I don’t follow this issue that closely in general. They are awfully rich. (I follow I-P, so I’ve heard about Adelson in the Republican Party and Saban in the Democratic Party.) But the general issue is corruption, the influence of rich people and also the revolving door between lobbying groups and government and I think because Clinton is the candidate people on the Democratic side have been raising the bar on what constitutes a problem.
Saban has a lot of influence, apparently. The New Yorker wrote a piece about him. Obviously there is nothing about the guy that would make him influential, except for the fact that he is rich and gives a lot of money to politicians. Otherwise why would anyone take his calls? In another article I didn’t link at the Forward, he boasts that he can call Hillary whenever he wants.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/05/10/the-influencer
Are the Clintons worse than others? I don’t know–I don’t follow this issue that closely in general. They are awfully rich. (I follow I-P, so I’ve heard about Adelson in the Republican Party and Saban in the Democratic Party.) But the general issue is corruption, the influence of rich people and also the revolving door between lobbying groups and government and I think because Clinton is the candidate people on the Democratic side have been raising the bar on what constitutes a problem.
Donald Johnson: It would be a sort of Darwinian process–those poor fools who don’t agree with the views of some rich prospective donor never get far.
That is most likely true. If you don’t share their beliefs, then why should they give you their support? There is not ONE Congresscritter who is a self avowed communist. NOT ONE! How can that be?
Donald Johnson: It would be a sort of Darwinian process–those poor fools who don’t agree with the views of some rich prospective donor never get far.
That is most likely true. If you don’t share their beliefs, then why should they give you their support? There is not ONE Congresscritter who is a self avowed communist. NOT ONE! How can that be?
Donald Johnson: It would be a sort of Darwinian process–those poor fools who don’t agree with the views of some rich prospective donor never get far.
That is most likely true. If you don’t share their beliefs, then why should they give you their support? There is not ONE Congresscritter who is a self avowed communist. NOT ONE! How can that be?
what is different with Clinton is that the amount of accusation far exceeds the amount of evidence. her corruption has become a matter of faith by her enemies.
Yes. But I feel that what most annoys folks on the outer reaches of the “left” is the feeling that both she and her husband share the generally accepted wisdom of The Very Serious People, and the elitism that goes along with that.
This is undoubtedly true wrt Israel-Palestine, and foreign policy in general, but not so much in domestic policy, where she strikes me as a standard issue liberal (a good thing!).
what is different with Clinton is that the amount of accusation far exceeds the amount of evidence. her corruption has become a matter of faith by her enemies.
Yes. But I feel that what most annoys folks on the outer reaches of the “left” is the feeling that both she and her husband share the generally accepted wisdom of The Very Serious People, and the elitism that goes along with that.
This is undoubtedly true wrt Israel-Palestine, and foreign policy in general, but not so much in domestic policy, where she strikes me as a standard issue liberal (a good thing!).
what is different with Clinton is that the amount of accusation far exceeds the amount of evidence. her corruption has become a matter of faith by her enemies.
Yes. But I feel that what most annoys folks on the outer reaches of the “left” is the feeling that both she and her husband share the generally accepted wisdom of The Very Serious People, and the elitism that goes along with that.
This is undoubtedly true wrt Israel-Palestine, and foreign policy in general, but not so much in domestic policy, where she strikes me as a standard issue liberal (a good thing!).
Oh for the days where it was just ambassadorships that big donors received upon their preferred candidate’s election.
Oh for the days where it was just ambassadorships that big donors received upon their preferred candidate’s election.
Oh for the days where it was just ambassadorships that big donors received upon their preferred candidate’s election.
or a pardon….cf Marc Rich. I still don’t understand that one, and it still pisses me off.
or a pardon….cf Marc Rich. I still don’t understand that one, and it still pisses me off.
or a pardon….cf Marc Rich. I still don’t understand that one, and it still pisses me off.
“what is different with Clinton is that the amount of accusation far exceeds the amount of evidence. her corruption has become a matter of faith by her enemies.”
I think this is not quite right. I think the amount of accusation exceeds the amount of criminal evidence.
In the email scandal alone, the amount of evidence is pretty high. The question of whether the actions rise to the level of criminality is legitimate, although the number of people who demanded immunity make even that questionable.
But, my point is, the amount of evidence that she did unethical and/or things that allow for questioning her judgement is pretty high.
And before you ask, I could copy a few of the lists from FB, I am not getting into the tit for tat that goes on endlessly on this subject. There is evidence on every accusation, it’s all over the place just google it.
You may not believe it incriminates or even impugns her honesty, but you can’t say evidence doesn’t exist.
Emails were deleted, drives were wiped, people died in Benghazi and there is evidence she might have or should have prevented it, she lied about all of the above, she tried to create false equivalencies with Powell, even blaming him for bad advice, all of which is evidence that she did something wrong and more important knew she was doing something wrong. And that’s just in the last 6 years. Evidence exists.
You employ her “prove it” strategy, defer, dissemble, deny, and ultimately declare a witch hunt because she has dissembled and denied long enough to seem like any investigation should be over.
Her corruption is a matter of record, her criminality is all that is in question.
“what is different with Clinton is that the amount of accusation far exceeds the amount of evidence. her corruption has become a matter of faith by her enemies.”
I think this is not quite right. I think the amount of accusation exceeds the amount of criminal evidence.
In the email scandal alone, the amount of evidence is pretty high. The question of whether the actions rise to the level of criminality is legitimate, although the number of people who demanded immunity make even that questionable.
But, my point is, the amount of evidence that she did unethical and/or things that allow for questioning her judgement is pretty high.
And before you ask, I could copy a few of the lists from FB, I am not getting into the tit for tat that goes on endlessly on this subject. There is evidence on every accusation, it’s all over the place just google it.
You may not believe it incriminates or even impugns her honesty, but you can’t say evidence doesn’t exist.
Emails were deleted, drives were wiped, people died in Benghazi and there is evidence she might have or should have prevented it, she lied about all of the above, she tried to create false equivalencies with Powell, even blaming him for bad advice, all of which is evidence that she did something wrong and more important knew she was doing something wrong. And that’s just in the last 6 years. Evidence exists.
You employ her “prove it” strategy, defer, dissemble, deny, and ultimately declare a witch hunt because she has dissembled and denied long enough to seem like any investigation should be over.
Her corruption is a matter of record, her criminality is all that is in question.
“what is different with Clinton is that the amount of accusation far exceeds the amount of evidence. her corruption has become a matter of faith by her enemies.”
I think this is not quite right. I think the amount of accusation exceeds the amount of criminal evidence.
In the email scandal alone, the amount of evidence is pretty high. The question of whether the actions rise to the level of criminality is legitimate, although the number of people who demanded immunity make even that questionable.
But, my point is, the amount of evidence that she did unethical and/or things that allow for questioning her judgement is pretty high.
And before you ask, I could copy a few of the lists from FB, I am not getting into the tit for tat that goes on endlessly on this subject. There is evidence on every accusation, it’s all over the place just google it.
You may not believe it incriminates or even impugns her honesty, but you can’t say evidence doesn’t exist.
Emails were deleted, drives were wiped, people died in Benghazi and there is evidence she might have or should have prevented it, she lied about all of the above, she tried to create false equivalencies with Powell, even blaming him for bad advice, all of which is evidence that she did something wrong and more important knew she was doing something wrong. And that’s just in the last 6 years. Evidence exists.
You employ her “prove it” strategy, defer, dissemble, deny, and ultimately declare a witch hunt because she has dissembled and denied long enough to seem like any investigation should be over.
Her corruption is a matter of record, her criminality is all that is in question.
people died in Benghazi and there is evidence she might have or should have prevented it.
There is no evidence for this. None. Even with the so-called ‘evidence’ found, criminality or corruption is not at stake wrt Benghazi. Judgment is. And even there, despite all their never-ending inquiries, the GOP came up utterly empty handed.
They got nothing.
people died in Benghazi and there is evidence she might have or should have prevented it.
There is no evidence for this. None. Even with the so-called ‘evidence’ found, criminality or corruption is not at stake wrt Benghazi. Judgment is. And even there, despite all their never-ending inquiries, the GOP came up utterly empty handed.
They got nothing.
people died in Benghazi and there is evidence she might have or should have prevented it.
There is no evidence for this. None. Even with the so-called ‘evidence’ found, criminality or corruption is not at stake wrt Benghazi. Judgment is. And even there, despite all their never-ending inquiries, the GOP came up utterly empty handed.
They got nothing.
Her corruption is a matter of record
it really isn’t.
confirmation bias has fooled you.
Her corruption is a matter of record
it really isn’t.
confirmation bias has fooled you.
Her corruption is a matter of record
it really isn’t.
confirmation bias has fooled you.
Cleek, did you miss Rajiv K. Fernando referenced above?
Cleek, did you miss Rajiv K. Fernando referenced above?
Cleek, did you miss Rajiv K. Fernando referenced above?
Also are we having a disagreement about illegal vs. corrupt?
A lot of corruption is legal, especially since politicians write the corruption laws.
Also are we having a disagreement about illegal vs. corrupt?
A lot of corruption is legal, especially since politicians write the corruption laws.
Also are we having a disagreement about illegal vs. corrupt?
A lot of corruption is legal, especially since politicians write the corruption laws.
clientelism is legal.
clientelism is legal.
clientelism is legal.
Here is a well known example of a politician on the Repubkican side pandering to a rich guy. Since it’s my example, it is again about I- P and the politician is Christie apologizing to Adelson for using the term ” occupied territories”. This was 2 years ago.
https://newrepublic.com/article/117207/christies-apology-adelson-occupied-territories-shift
I am guessing these examples are easy to find because Adelson and Saban are proud of their cause and don’t try to conceal it. I would guess people pushing for other issues, like Wall Street types pushing for less regulation or drug companies pushing for ” trade” deals favorable to them would be more secretive about what they are up to.
Here is a well known example of a politician on the Repubkican side pandering to a rich guy. Since it’s my example, it is again about I- P and the politician is Christie apologizing to Adelson for using the term ” occupied territories”. This was 2 years ago.
https://newrepublic.com/article/117207/christies-apology-adelson-occupied-territories-shift
I am guessing these examples are easy to find because Adelson and Saban are proud of their cause and don’t try to conceal it. I would guess people pushing for other issues, like Wall Street types pushing for less regulation or drug companies pushing for ” trade” deals favorable to them would be more secretive about what they are up to.
Here is a well known example of a politician on the Repubkican side pandering to a rich guy. Since it’s my example, it is again about I- P and the politician is Christie apologizing to Adelson for using the term ” occupied territories”. This was 2 years ago.
https://newrepublic.com/article/117207/christies-apology-adelson-occupied-territories-shift
I am guessing these examples are easy to find because Adelson and Saban are proud of their cause and don’t try to conceal it. I would guess people pushing for other issues, like Wall Street types pushing for less regulation or drug companies pushing for ” trade” deals favorable to them would be more secretive about what they are up to.
people are asserting Clinton is corrupt. when i ask for evidence, i get hand-waving.
Patent BS. You dismissed questions about the appearance of financial conflicts of interest as meaningless because nominally the speaker is only being paid for their time and expertise in giving a speech, because nominally the organizations are strictly making a charitable donation to a foundation ran by the politician, and because rhetorically we’re 10yo for having the gall to bring up campaign donations (you fail to specify if this alludes to youthful naivete in thinking that politicians aren’t influenced by such donations, or in keeping with the rest of your noble defense of cash politics, if it’s youthful ignorance for imagining that the donors want anything more than the candidate to be elected and then conduct themself impartially).
And now you’ve moved the goalposts away from your ridiculous rejection of the Clintons being normal human beings subject to influence by claiming that challenges to your rejection of the very possibility of ulterior motives is an accusation of corruption, apparently in criminally prosecutable quid pro quo sense because you reject non-recusal in the presence of conflicts of interest out of hand as evidence. Instead of defending your (admittedly indefensible) claim that there’s no reason to ask candidates about how they’ve handled potential financial conflicts of interest, you’ve latched onto the idea that rejecting that claim is synonymous with claiming corruption on their part, presumably in a manner provable in a court of law.
So AGAIN, no, I do not think Clinton’s financial conflicts of interest meet our legal definition of corruption. I NEVER claimed they did, no matter how much you seem to want me to have done so. These are apparent financial conflicts of interest, and they’re of public interest, particularly given how damned defensive-yet-nonchalant Clinton has been about them. This is about an appearance of corruption because she and her husband received payments and contributions from entities she dealt with in an official capacity, sometimes while she was making decisions that affected them that subsequently were decided in their favor. Is there evidence of explicit corruption in the sense of quid pro quo? No. Is there evidence of financial conflict of interest? Yes. Are our laws written in such a way that there is a whole hell of a lot of room for corruption that produces absolutely no evidence of quid pro quo? Also yes. Does this mean that Clinton was doing it? No. Does it mean that conflicts of interest should be taken seriously and receive close public scrutiny to avoid corruption hidden in plain sight (to the very limited degree that it is possible to do so), and more pointedly, to demonstrate disapprobation of continuing to entertain such conflicts of interest? Absolutely.
—
hsh: I’d say that if you have a problem with this sort of thing, you should want Clinton’s feet held to the fire about this especially if you hope to see her elected. She’s shown she can definitely be swayed by public outcry, so convincing her that this actually creates an appearance of conflicts of interest and should be avoided would be a Good Thing. I do understand that we have the flip side of possibly lowering her electoral prospects, which I’d take more seriously if this hadn’t been brought out by GOP partisans ages ago, and it hasn’t exactly been a theme that got a lot of traction… which is ofc one reason why leftists are so damned riled about it…
people are asserting Clinton is corrupt. when i ask for evidence, i get hand-waving.
Patent BS. You dismissed questions about the appearance of financial conflicts of interest as meaningless because nominally the speaker is only being paid for their time and expertise in giving a speech, because nominally the organizations are strictly making a charitable donation to a foundation ran by the politician, and because rhetorically we’re 10yo for having the gall to bring up campaign donations (you fail to specify if this alludes to youthful naivete in thinking that politicians aren’t influenced by such donations, or in keeping with the rest of your noble defense of cash politics, if it’s youthful ignorance for imagining that the donors want anything more than the candidate to be elected and then conduct themself impartially).
And now you’ve moved the goalposts away from your ridiculous rejection of the Clintons being normal human beings subject to influence by claiming that challenges to your rejection of the very possibility of ulterior motives is an accusation of corruption, apparently in criminally prosecutable quid pro quo sense because you reject non-recusal in the presence of conflicts of interest out of hand as evidence. Instead of defending your (admittedly indefensible) claim that there’s no reason to ask candidates about how they’ve handled potential financial conflicts of interest, you’ve latched onto the idea that rejecting that claim is synonymous with claiming corruption on their part, presumably in a manner provable in a court of law.
So AGAIN, no, I do not think Clinton’s financial conflicts of interest meet our legal definition of corruption. I NEVER claimed they did, no matter how much you seem to want me to have done so. These are apparent financial conflicts of interest, and they’re of public interest, particularly given how damned defensive-yet-nonchalant Clinton has been about them. This is about an appearance of corruption because she and her husband received payments and contributions from entities she dealt with in an official capacity, sometimes while she was making decisions that affected them that subsequently were decided in their favor. Is there evidence of explicit corruption in the sense of quid pro quo? No. Is there evidence of financial conflict of interest? Yes. Are our laws written in such a way that there is a whole hell of a lot of room for corruption that produces absolutely no evidence of quid pro quo? Also yes. Does this mean that Clinton was doing it? No. Does it mean that conflicts of interest should be taken seriously and receive close public scrutiny to avoid corruption hidden in plain sight (to the very limited degree that it is possible to do so), and more pointedly, to demonstrate disapprobation of continuing to entertain such conflicts of interest? Absolutely.
—
hsh: I’d say that if you have a problem with this sort of thing, you should want Clinton’s feet held to the fire about this especially if you hope to see her elected. She’s shown she can definitely be swayed by public outcry, so convincing her that this actually creates an appearance of conflicts of interest and should be avoided would be a Good Thing. I do understand that we have the flip side of possibly lowering her electoral prospects, which I’d take more seriously if this hadn’t been brought out by GOP partisans ages ago, and it hasn’t exactly been a theme that got a lot of traction… which is ofc one reason why leftists are so damned riled about it…
people are asserting Clinton is corrupt. when i ask for evidence, i get hand-waving.
Patent BS. You dismissed questions about the appearance of financial conflicts of interest as meaningless because nominally the speaker is only being paid for their time and expertise in giving a speech, because nominally the organizations are strictly making a charitable donation to a foundation ran by the politician, and because rhetorically we’re 10yo for having the gall to bring up campaign donations (you fail to specify if this alludes to youthful naivete in thinking that politicians aren’t influenced by such donations, or in keeping with the rest of your noble defense of cash politics, if it’s youthful ignorance for imagining that the donors want anything more than the candidate to be elected and then conduct themself impartially).
And now you’ve moved the goalposts away from your ridiculous rejection of the Clintons being normal human beings subject to influence by claiming that challenges to your rejection of the very possibility of ulterior motives is an accusation of corruption, apparently in criminally prosecutable quid pro quo sense because you reject non-recusal in the presence of conflicts of interest out of hand as evidence. Instead of defending your (admittedly indefensible) claim that there’s no reason to ask candidates about how they’ve handled potential financial conflicts of interest, you’ve latched onto the idea that rejecting that claim is synonymous with claiming corruption on their part, presumably in a manner provable in a court of law.
So AGAIN, no, I do not think Clinton’s financial conflicts of interest meet our legal definition of corruption. I NEVER claimed they did, no matter how much you seem to want me to have done so. These are apparent financial conflicts of interest, and they’re of public interest, particularly given how damned defensive-yet-nonchalant Clinton has been about them. This is about an appearance of corruption because she and her husband received payments and contributions from entities she dealt with in an official capacity, sometimes while she was making decisions that affected them that subsequently were decided in their favor. Is there evidence of explicit corruption in the sense of quid pro quo? No. Is there evidence of financial conflict of interest? Yes. Are our laws written in such a way that there is a whole hell of a lot of room for corruption that produces absolutely no evidence of quid pro quo? Also yes. Does this mean that Clinton was doing it? No. Does it mean that conflicts of interest should be taken seriously and receive close public scrutiny to avoid corruption hidden in plain sight (to the very limited degree that it is possible to do so), and more pointedly, to demonstrate disapprobation of continuing to entertain such conflicts of interest? Absolutely.
—
hsh: I’d say that if you have a problem with this sort of thing, you should want Clinton’s feet held to the fire about this especially if you hope to see her elected. She’s shown she can definitely be swayed by public outcry, so convincing her that this actually creates an appearance of conflicts of interest and should be avoided would be a Good Thing. I do understand that we have the flip side of possibly lowering her electoral prospects, which I’d take more seriously if this hadn’t been brought out by GOP partisans ages ago, and it hasn’t exactly been a theme that got a lot of traction… which is ofc one reason why leftists are so damned riled about it…
(All of the above concedes for the sake of argument that corruption can only refer to illegal activity. Which is ridiculous, as others also point out. But still.)
(All of the above concedes for the sake of argument that corruption can only refer to illegal activity. Which is ridiculous, as others also point out. But still.)
(All of the above concedes for the sake of argument that corruption can only refer to illegal activity. Which is ridiculous, as others also point out. But still.)
What are you looking for, NV? Public campaign financing? Rules against revolving doors? Or saints who refuse to make speeches for loads of money, even though lots of organizations are willing to pay them?
State your specific rules, and try to skip the word salad.
What are you looking for, NV? Public campaign financing? Rules against revolving doors? Or saints who refuse to make speeches for loads of money, even though lots of organizations are willing to pay them?
State your specific rules, and try to skip the word salad.
What are you looking for, NV? Public campaign financing? Rules against revolving doors? Or saints who refuse to make speeches for loads of money, even though lots of organizations are willing to pay them?
State your specific rules, and try to skip the word salad.
How about non saints who take the money and release the transcripts of what they say? That realky seems obvious. Clinton is running for President. She took 675,000 in speech money from Goldman Sachs. What did she say?
We know what Romney said to some donors and he sure wouldn’t have wanted that released.
How about non saints who take the money and release the transcripts of what they say? That realky seems obvious. Clinton is running for President. She took 675,000 in speech money from Goldman Sachs. What did she say?
We know what Romney said to some donors and he sure wouldn’t have wanted that released.
How about non saints who take the money and release the transcripts of what they say? That realky seems obvious. Clinton is running for President. She took 675,000 in speech money from Goldman Sachs. What did she say?
We know what Romney said to some donors and he sure wouldn’t have wanted that released.
How about non saints who take the money and release the transcripts of what they say?
So pass a law. I’m sure she may have said something unflattering. Why should she be held to standards that other people aren’t? Where are Bernie’s tax returns, Donald? Conveniently, nobody cares anymore. But they do care about Donald Trump’s, and he just loves him some Bernie rhetoric now.
Not that Bernie is a horrible person, but the ONLY way we hold everyone to the same standard is by passing laws.
How about non saints who take the money and release the transcripts of what they say?
So pass a law. I’m sure she may have said something unflattering. Why should she be held to standards that other people aren’t? Where are Bernie’s tax returns, Donald? Conveniently, nobody cares anymore. But they do care about Donald Trump’s, and he just loves him some Bernie rhetoric now.
Not that Bernie is a horrible person, but the ONLY way we hold everyone to the same standard is by passing laws.
How about non saints who take the money and release the transcripts of what they say?
So pass a law. I’m sure she may have said something unflattering. Why should she be held to standards that other people aren’t? Where are Bernie’s tax returns, Donald? Conveniently, nobody cares anymore. But they do care about Donald Trump’s, and he just loves him some Bernie rhetoric now.
Not that Bernie is a horrible person, but the ONLY way we hold everyone to the same standard is by passing laws.
By the way, Donald, why can’t we have transcripts of all of your conversations here so we can make sure that you’re not the hypocrite you accuse everyone else of being?
By the way, Donald, why can’t we have transcripts of all of your conversations here so we can make sure that you’re not the hypocrite you accuse everyone else of being?
By the way, Donald, why can’t we have transcripts of all of your conversations here so we can make sure that you’re not the hypocrite you accuse everyone else of being?
I appreciate sanbikinoraion bringing up Sam Allardyce
England’s men’s senior football manager has just been dismissed after 67 days and a single game in charge over allegations of corruption stemming from a revised conversation with undercover journalists in which he agreed, essentially, to trade £400k in speaking fees to a fictional Far East company in exchange for his inside knowledge on how to avoid 3rd party ownership rules (3rd party ownership of football players being not much better than slavery, apparently).
It would probably be a lot more interesting to have everyone talk about this rather than Clinton, where every piece of luggage is brought into the conversation.
If you haven’t followed it, this guardian piece by Simon Jenkins, with the subtitle “Everyone in football knew what Sam Allardyce was talking about. His biggest crime was to embarrass the FA”might give you a taste.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/28/greed-governs-sport-corruption-football-sam-allardyce
I think the fork in the road between the US and the UK was Abscam, which resulted in convictions but also a deep concern about sting operations. I’m not sure if what the UK journalists did to Allardyce would be legal in the US.
I’m still wading through a lot of that, but I tend to agree with what Jenkins writes here, up to the last line.
Discussing the various ways round the transfer rules must be routine among agents and managers. Bad-mouthing colleagues in private is hardly a hanging crime. The specific offer of cash for consultancy, as Allardyce emphasised, was something he would “have to run by” his seniors at the FA. As for bungs and bribes, he could hardly have been more explicit in condemning them: “I haven’t heard that. I haven’t heard that, you stupid man. What are you talking about? … You daren’t even think about it.” The sting was justified, but whether the offences were sacking offences must be doubtful.
I don’t think that stings are always unjustified, but only if they are going to stop larger crimes, not to prove that people don’t always have the best of motives. It seems that regular use of stings just encourages the most sociopathic are able to succeed. It’s sort of like a Darwinian environment to develop best liars.
That’s not to say that I have a solution. Jenkins suggests that it is the investigative journalist is the answer. That seems rather optimistic.
I appreciate sanbikinoraion bringing up Sam Allardyce
England’s men’s senior football manager has just been dismissed after 67 days and a single game in charge over allegations of corruption stemming from a revised conversation with undercover journalists in which he agreed, essentially, to trade £400k in speaking fees to a fictional Far East company in exchange for his inside knowledge on how to avoid 3rd party ownership rules (3rd party ownership of football players being not much better than slavery, apparently).
It would probably be a lot more interesting to have everyone talk about this rather than Clinton, where every piece of luggage is brought into the conversation.
If you haven’t followed it, this guardian piece by Simon Jenkins, with the subtitle “Everyone in football knew what Sam Allardyce was talking about. His biggest crime was to embarrass the FA”might give you a taste.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/28/greed-governs-sport-corruption-football-sam-allardyce
I think the fork in the road between the US and the UK was Abscam, which resulted in convictions but also a deep concern about sting operations. I’m not sure if what the UK journalists did to Allardyce would be legal in the US.
I’m still wading through a lot of that, but I tend to agree with what Jenkins writes here, up to the last line.
Discussing the various ways round the transfer rules must be routine among agents and managers. Bad-mouthing colleagues in private is hardly a hanging crime. The specific offer of cash for consultancy, as Allardyce emphasised, was something he would “have to run by” his seniors at the FA. As for bungs and bribes, he could hardly have been more explicit in condemning them: “I haven’t heard that. I haven’t heard that, you stupid man. What are you talking about? … You daren’t even think about it.” The sting was justified, but whether the offences were sacking offences must be doubtful.
I don’t think that stings are always unjustified, but only if they are going to stop larger crimes, not to prove that people don’t always have the best of motives. It seems that regular use of stings just encourages the most sociopathic are able to succeed. It’s sort of like a Darwinian environment to develop best liars.
That’s not to say that I have a solution. Jenkins suggests that it is the investigative journalist is the answer. That seems rather optimistic.
I appreciate sanbikinoraion bringing up Sam Allardyce
England’s men’s senior football manager has just been dismissed after 67 days and a single game in charge over allegations of corruption stemming from a revised conversation with undercover journalists in which he agreed, essentially, to trade £400k in speaking fees to a fictional Far East company in exchange for his inside knowledge on how to avoid 3rd party ownership rules (3rd party ownership of football players being not much better than slavery, apparently).
It would probably be a lot more interesting to have everyone talk about this rather than Clinton, where every piece of luggage is brought into the conversation.
If you haven’t followed it, this guardian piece by Simon Jenkins, with the subtitle “Everyone in football knew what Sam Allardyce was talking about. His biggest crime was to embarrass the FA”might give you a taste.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/28/greed-governs-sport-corruption-football-sam-allardyce
I think the fork in the road between the US and the UK was Abscam, which resulted in convictions but also a deep concern about sting operations. I’m not sure if what the UK journalists did to Allardyce would be legal in the US.
I’m still wading through a lot of that, but I tend to agree with what Jenkins writes here, up to the last line.
Discussing the various ways round the transfer rules must be routine among agents and managers. Bad-mouthing colleagues in private is hardly a hanging crime. The specific offer of cash for consultancy, as Allardyce emphasised, was something he would “have to run by” his seniors at the FA. As for bungs and bribes, he could hardly have been more explicit in condemning them: “I haven’t heard that. I haven’t heard that, you stupid man. What are you talking about? … You daren’t even think about it.” The sting was justified, but whether the offences were sacking offences must be doubtful.
I don’t think that stings are always unjustified, but only if they are going to stop larger crimes, not to prove that people don’t always have the best of motives. It seems that regular use of stings just encourages the most sociopathic are able to succeed. It’s sort of like a Darwinian environment to develop best liars.
That’s not to say that I have a solution. Jenkins suggests that it is the investigative journalist is the answer. That seems rather optimistic.
It would probably be a lot more interesting to have everyone talk about this rather than Clinton, ,/I>
Except that this was obvious corruption where the guy was selling ugly but confidential information in a sting operation.
Also, some of us could give a rat’s nether regions about sports.
It would probably be a lot more interesting to have everyone talk about this rather than Clinton, ,/I>
Except that this was obvious corruption where the guy was selling ugly but confidential information in a sting operation.
Also, some of us could give a rat’s nether regions about sports.
It would probably be a lot more interesting to have everyone talk about this rather than Clinton, ,/I>
Except that this was obvious corruption where the guy was selling ugly but confidential information in a sting operation.
Also, some of us could give a rat’s nether regions about sports.
oops Sorry.
oops Sorry.
oops Sorry.
Sapient, some people, despite agreeing with some of the points you make, could not give a shit about your opinion and what you like or dislike because you never read the links proffered or even what is quoted in the comment. If you don’t like sports, STFU and stop trying to make the discussion all about what you think.
Sapient, some people, despite agreeing with some of the points you make, could not give a shit about your opinion and what you like or dislike because you never read the links proffered or even what is quoted in the comment. If you don’t like sports, STFU and stop trying to make the discussion all about what you think.
Sapient, some people, despite agreeing with some of the points you make, could not give a shit about your opinion and what you like or dislike because you never read the links proffered or even what is quoted in the comment. If you don’t like sports, STFU and stop trying to make the discussion all about what you think.
Okay. I thought this started out as a thread (open) about the debate. My bad, as usual.
Okay. I thought this started out as a thread (open) about the debate. My bad, as usual.
Okay. I thought this started out as a thread (open) about the debate. My bad, as usual.
Is Donald suggesting that Clinton be held to a different standard than anybody else, or at least anybody else who is running for president? (Our Donald, not the Donald)
Is Donald suggesting that Clinton be held to a different standard than anybody else, or at least anybody else who is running for president? (Our Donald, not the Donald)
Is Donald suggesting that Clinton be held to a different standard than anybody else, or at least anybody else who is running for president? (Our Donald, not the Donald)
If I may,
I think Donald is suggesting that Clinton be held to a different standard than any candidate has been held to in the past. I’m sure Donald has HUGE standards for “the Donald” because he’s always mentioning them. And, yes, I know that Donald is pinching his nose so hard to vote for Clinton.
Donald? You can certainly speak for yourself. People are only marginally interested in my comments, and certainly not when I’m interpreting you. Although I do find it interesting that some “lefties” just can’t let go of the “Hillary is corrupt!” theme, even when there’s a freaking NAZI running in opposition.
If I may,
I think Donald is suggesting that Clinton be held to a different standard than any candidate has been held to in the past. I’m sure Donald has HUGE standards for “the Donald” because he’s always mentioning them. And, yes, I know that Donald is pinching his nose so hard to vote for Clinton.
Donald? You can certainly speak for yourself. People are only marginally interested in my comments, and certainly not when I’m interpreting you. Although I do find it interesting that some “lefties” just can’t let go of the “Hillary is corrupt!” theme, even when there’s a freaking NAZI running in opposition.
If I may,
I think Donald is suggesting that Clinton be held to a different standard than any candidate has been held to in the past. I’m sure Donald has HUGE standards for “the Donald” because he’s always mentioning them. And, yes, I know that Donald is pinching his nose so hard to vote for Clinton.
Donald? You can certainly speak for yourself. People are only marginally interested in my comments, and certainly not when I’m interpreting you. Although I do find it interesting that some “lefties” just can’t let go of the “Hillary is corrupt!” theme, even when there’s a freaking NAZI running in opposition.
You can talk about what you like sapient, but stop trying to squelch discussion. Russell also doesn’t think much of sports, yet somehow, he is able to let other people talk about it. Is this really so much to ask?
You can talk about what you like sapient, but stop trying to squelch discussion. Russell also doesn’t think much of sports, yet somehow, he is able to let other people talk about it. Is this really so much to ask?
You can talk about what you like sapient, but stop trying to squelch discussion. Russell also doesn’t think much of sports, yet somehow, he is able to let other people talk about it. Is this really so much to ask?
Am I suggesting Clinton be held to a different standard? No. There was a candidate earlier who made corruption a theme and If people want to point out that Sanders wasn’t perfect either, that’s fine, because he was still correct. I don’t understand the question, actually. I don’t like Clinton, but there are other Democrats I dislike even more, starting with one of my senators and the jackass whose congressional district I’m in. But they aren’t running for President, so it seems less relevant.
Republicans are for the most part worse on every issue, with rare exceptions here and there. And I just mentioned Adelson and how Christie acted like a whipped dog to keep his approval.
Am I suggesting Clinton be held to a different standard? No. There was a candidate earlier who made corruption a theme and If people want to point out that Sanders wasn’t perfect either, that’s fine, because he was still correct. I don’t understand the question, actually. I don’t like Clinton, but there are other Democrats I dislike even more, starting with one of my senators and the jackass whose congressional district I’m in. But they aren’t running for President, so it seems less relevant.
Republicans are for the most part worse on every issue, with rare exceptions here and there. And I just mentioned Adelson and how Christie acted like a whipped dog to keep his approval.
Am I suggesting Clinton be held to a different standard? No. There was a candidate earlier who made corruption a theme and If people want to point out that Sanders wasn’t perfect either, that’s fine, because he was still correct. I don’t understand the question, actually. I don’t like Clinton, but there are other Democrats I dislike even more, starting with one of my senators and the jackass whose congressional district I’m in. But they aren’t running for President, so it seems less relevant.
Republicans are for the most part worse on every issue, with rare exceptions here and there. And I just mentioned Adelson and how Christie acted like a whipped dog to keep his approval.
Thanks, lj. I won’t try to squelch sports discussion. In fact, it usually doesn’t occur to me. I overreacted to this sentence of yours:
It would probably be a lot more interesting to have everyone talk about this rather than Clinton, where every piece of luggage is brought into the conversation.
So I apologize for that.
Thanks, lj. I won’t try to squelch sports discussion. In fact, it usually doesn’t occur to me. I overreacted to this sentence of yours:
It would probably be a lot more interesting to have everyone talk about this rather than Clinton, where every piece of luggage is brought into the conversation.
So I apologize for that.
Thanks, lj. I won’t try to squelch sports discussion. In fact, it usually doesn’t occur to me. I overreacted to this sentence of yours:
It would probably be a lot more interesting to have everyone talk about this rather than Clinton, where every piece of luggage is brought into the conversation.
So I apologize for that.
I don’t understand the question, actually. I don’t like Clinton, but there are other Democrats I dislike even more
I’m so happy about that! Is there anyone pure enough in your universe that you like? Clearly, Bernie wasn’t perfect either. He was correct about some things, but certainly not his tax returns. And not too much about some toxic waste dump in Texas.
But I understand all of that, because Sanders is a Senator from Vermont, not a saint, and I don’t expect him to be one. I thought he was a really good guy, and so is Clinton a good woman. No contest with Trump, who has skeletons coming out of his wazoo, so no need to be looking for corruption in Hillary’s record. Corruption is an interesting theme for next time – when you set the standards early, or for your Congressional person.
I don’t understand the question, actually. I don’t like Clinton, but there are other Democrats I dislike even more
I’m so happy about that! Is there anyone pure enough in your universe that you like? Clearly, Bernie wasn’t perfect either. He was correct about some things, but certainly not his tax returns. And not too much about some toxic waste dump in Texas.
But I understand all of that, because Sanders is a Senator from Vermont, not a saint, and I don’t expect him to be one. I thought he was a really good guy, and so is Clinton a good woman. No contest with Trump, who has skeletons coming out of his wazoo, so no need to be looking for corruption in Hillary’s record. Corruption is an interesting theme for next time – when you set the standards early, or for your Congressional person.
I don’t understand the question, actually. I don’t like Clinton, but there are other Democrats I dislike even more
I’m so happy about that! Is there anyone pure enough in your universe that you like? Clearly, Bernie wasn’t perfect either. He was correct about some things, but certainly not his tax returns. And not too much about some toxic waste dump in Texas.
But I understand all of that, because Sanders is a Senator from Vermont, not a saint, and I don’t expect him to be one. I thought he was a really good guy, and so is Clinton a good woman. No contest with Trump, who has skeletons coming out of his wazoo, so no need to be looking for corruption in Hillary’s record. Corruption is an interesting theme for next time – when you set the standards early, or for your Congressional person.
Thanks Sapient. That line was not specifically aimed at anyone, with Clinton, I don’t believe that anyone is able to view this from a neutral point of view. That goes for people I agree with and people I disagree with. So a discussion of how to deal with ‘corruption’ requires a step back. We are not going to figure out how to deal with public corruption by talking about Clinton, it is something a lot bigger than her and bigger than a party and bigger than one country.
Thanks Sapient. That line was not specifically aimed at anyone, with Clinton, I don’t believe that anyone is able to view this from a neutral point of view. That goes for people I agree with and people I disagree with. So a discussion of how to deal with ‘corruption’ requires a step back. We are not going to figure out how to deal with public corruption by talking about Clinton, it is something a lot bigger than her and bigger than a party and bigger than one country.
Thanks Sapient. That line was not specifically aimed at anyone, with Clinton, I don’t believe that anyone is able to view this from a neutral point of view. That goes for people I agree with and people I disagree with. So a discussion of how to deal with ‘corruption’ requires a step back. We are not going to figure out how to deal with public corruption by talking about Clinton, it is something a lot bigger than her and bigger than a party and bigger than one country.
You’re right, lj, and your comments are always appreciated by me.
You’re right, lj, and your comments are always appreciated by me.
You’re right, lj, and your comments are always appreciated by me.
When I’m thinking, that is. Ouch! Sorry for the second comment!
When I’m thinking, that is. Ouch! Sorry for the second comment!
When I’m thinking, that is. Ouch! Sorry for the second comment!
Mostly, sapient, my standards are really low. Don’t lie or make excuses for your allies when they blow up children. Seriously, those are the standards, or close enough. Don’t pretend to be outraged by human rights violations when committed by the enemy of the moment and then ignore or justify what your allies are doing with the weapons you give them. These are really low standards and people should criticize their politicians when they violate them.
Mostly, sapient, my standards are really low. Don’t lie or make excuses for your allies when they blow up children. Seriously, those are the standards, or close enough. Don’t pretend to be outraged by human rights violations when committed by the enemy of the moment and then ignore or justify what your allies are doing with the weapons you give them. These are really low standards and people should criticize their politicians when they violate them.
Mostly, sapient, my standards are really low. Don’t lie or make excuses for your allies when they blow up children. Seriously, those are the standards, or close enough. Don’t pretend to be outraged by human rights violations when committed by the enemy of the moment and then ignore or justify what your allies are doing with the weapons you give them. These are really low standards and people should criticize their politicians when they violate them.
No doubt both voters and donors have some influence with candidates/politicians, Donald. Most people’s policy views are influenced by a lot of things. Politicians put their pantsuits on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.
I occasionally give money to candidates in amounts small enough that it would be ludicrous to think that I might have any influence over their policy positions. Why do I do that? Generally it’s because I agree with them on lots of stuff and think they’ll do a better job than the other guy. I’d venture to say that’s the most common reason that people donate to candidates.
Granted, the love of money is the root of all evil and billionaires have more potential to use that fact to influence the votes of politicians than the rest of us do. Still, it’s silly to insist that because a politician and a donor have the same view on some subject that the politician has been bought.
No doubt both voters and donors have some influence with candidates/politicians, Donald. Most people’s policy views are influenced by a lot of things. Politicians put their pantsuits on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.
I occasionally give money to candidates in amounts small enough that it would be ludicrous to think that I might have any influence over their policy positions. Why do I do that? Generally it’s because I agree with them on lots of stuff and think they’ll do a better job than the other guy. I’d venture to say that’s the most common reason that people donate to candidates.
Granted, the love of money is the root of all evil and billionaires have more potential to use that fact to influence the votes of politicians than the rest of us do. Still, it’s silly to insist that because a politician and a donor have the same view on some subject that the politician has been bought.
No doubt both voters and donors have some influence with candidates/politicians, Donald. Most people’s policy views are influenced by a lot of things. Politicians put their pantsuits on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.
I occasionally give money to candidates in amounts small enough that it would be ludicrous to think that I might have any influence over their policy positions. Why do I do that? Generally it’s because I agree with them on lots of stuff and think they’ll do a better job than the other guy. I’d venture to say that’s the most common reason that people donate to candidates.
Granted, the love of money is the root of all evil and billionaires have more potential to use that fact to influence the votes of politicians than the rest of us do. Still, it’s silly to insist that because a politician and a donor have the same view on some subject that the politician has been bought.
Do you have someone who is in political office, or who’s running for one, who lives up to your low standard, Donald?
Do you have someone who is in political office, or who’s running for one, who lives up to your low standard, Donald?
Do you have someone who is in political office, or who’s running for one, who lives up to your low standard, Donald?
Obama is much less corrupt than Clinton so far as I can tell.
Obama is much less corrupt than Clinton so far as I can tell.
Obama is much less corrupt than Clinton so far as I can tell.
Depends on the issue. 27 senators voted the right way in saying we shouldn’t arm the Saudis. And truthfully I don’t like my sour mood. Ideally I should just be talking about issues and criticizing people who vote the wrong way on a given issue or who consistently lie and one can do that without getting too personal about it. OTOH watching Democrats denounce the IraqWar and then pick Clinton and praise her for her foreign policy expertise– well, the kindest thing one could say is that it seems a bit inconsistent. Or when Clinton criticizes Trump for his crush on Putin who has blood on his hands, even as we assist the Saudis in killing children, it seems appropriate to point out the hypocrisy. Much of the Bush era denunciations of Iraq War crimes looks more like partisanship than anything else. Not all, but it seems suspiciously easy to turn off the moral outrage when politically convenient, just as Orwell described people doing in his day.
What I have been doing is reacting emotionally to Democrats who seem to fit Orwell’s description of ideologues so closely. The people I admire most don’t rant as I have in recent threads — they just give facts and moral judgments where appropriate and for any fairminded person that should be enough. They aren’t necessarily lefties– in fact, a problem with some on the far left is that they just switch good guy and bad guy labels around and you just have a different sort of hypocrisy.
Depends on the issue. 27 senators voted the right way in saying we shouldn’t arm the Saudis. And truthfully I don’t like my sour mood. Ideally I should just be talking about issues and criticizing people who vote the wrong way on a given issue or who consistently lie and one can do that without getting too personal about it. OTOH watching Democrats denounce the IraqWar and then pick Clinton and praise her for her foreign policy expertise– well, the kindest thing one could say is that it seems a bit inconsistent. Or when Clinton criticizes Trump for his crush on Putin who has blood on his hands, even as we assist the Saudis in killing children, it seems appropriate to point out the hypocrisy. Much of the Bush era denunciations of Iraq War crimes looks more like partisanship than anything else. Not all, but it seems suspiciously easy to turn off the moral outrage when politically convenient, just as Orwell described people doing in his day.
What I have been doing is reacting emotionally to Democrats who seem to fit Orwell’s description of ideologues so closely. The people I admire most don’t rant as I have in recent threads — they just give facts and moral judgments where appropriate and for any fairminded person that should be enough. They aren’t necessarily lefties– in fact, a problem with some on the far left is that they just switch good guy and bad guy labels around and you just have a different sort of hypocrisy.
Depends on the issue. 27 senators voted the right way in saying we shouldn’t arm the Saudis. And truthfully I don’t like my sour mood. Ideally I should just be talking about issues and criticizing people who vote the wrong way on a given issue or who consistently lie and one can do that without getting too personal about it. OTOH watching Democrats denounce the IraqWar and then pick Clinton and praise her for her foreign policy expertise– well, the kindest thing one could say is that it seems a bit inconsistent. Or when Clinton criticizes Trump for his crush on Putin who has blood on his hands, even as we assist the Saudis in killing children, it seems appropriate to point out the hypocrisy. Much of the Bush era denunciations of Iraq War crimes looks more like partisanship than anything else. Not all, but it seems suspiciously easy to turn off the moral outrage when politically convenient, just as Orwell described people doing in his day.
What I have been doing is reacting emotionally to Democrats who seem to fit Orwell’s description of ideologues so closely. The people I admire most don’t rant as I have in recent threads — they just give facts and moral judgments where appropriate and for any fairminded person that should be enough. They aren’t necessarily lefties– in fact, a problem with some on the far left is that they just switch good guy and bad guy labels around and you just have a different sort of hypocrisy.
Obama is much less corrupt than Clinton so far as I can tell.
I’m almost 60, and Obama is the greatest President of my lifetime. I think he may be the greatest since Lincoln, definitely since FDR.
I’m okay with Clinton’s level of not corrupt.
Obama is much less corrupt than Clinton so far as I can tell.
I’m almost 60, and Obama is the greatest President of my lifetime. I think he may be the greatest since Lincoln, definitely since FDR.
I’m okay with Clinton’s level of not corrupt.
Obama is much less corrupt than Clinton so far as I can tell.
I’m almost 60, and Obama is the greatest President of my lifetime. I think he may be the greatest since Lincoln, definitely since FDR.
I’m okay with Clinton’s level of not corrupt.
OTOH watching Democrats denounce the IraqWar and then pick Clinton and praise her for her foreign policy expertise– well, the kindest thing one could say is that it seems a bit inconsistent.
Did you hate on Kerry this much, or are you a misogynist? Asking, not accusing.
OTOH watching Democrats denounce the IraqWar and then pick Clinton and praise her for her foreign policy expertise– well, the kindest thing one could say is that it seems a bit inconsistent.
Did you hate on Kerry this much, or are you a misogynist? Asking, not accusing.
OTOH watching Democrats denounce the IraqWar and then pick Clinton and praise her for her foreign policy expertise– well, the kindest thing one could say is that it seems a bit inconsistent.
Did you hate on Kerry this much, or are you a misogynist? Asking, not accusing.
OTOH watching Democrats denounce the IraqWar and then pick Clinton and praise her for her foreign policy expertise– well, the kindest thing one could say is that it seems a bit inconsistent.
Or one could, for example, say “Well in this election relative expertise is a pretty low bar”.
Mind, I actually do see her as having foreign policy expertise. Some of it gained thru trial and error. And isn’t there something to be said for a demonstrated ability to learn from one’s mistakes?
OTOH watching Democrats denounce the IraqWar and then pick Clinton and praise her for her foreign policy expertise– well, the kindest thing one could say is that it seems a bit inconsistent.
Or one could, for example, say “Well in this election relative expertise is a pretty low bar”.
Mind, I actually do see her as having foreign policy expertise. Some of it gained thru trial and error. And isn’t there something to be said for a demonstrated ability to learn from one’s mistakes?
OTOH watching Democrats denounce the IraqWar and then pick Clinton and praise her for her foreign policy expertise– well, the kindest thing one could say is that it seems a bit inconsistent.
Or one could, for example, say “Well in this election relative expertise is a pretty low bar”.
Mind, I actually do see her as having foreign policy expertise. Some of it gained thru trial and error. And isn’t there something to be said for a demonstrated ability to learn from one’s mistakes?
Mind, I actually do see her as having foreign policy expertise. Some of it gained thru trial and error. And isn’t there something to be said for a demonstrated ability to learn from one’s mistakes?
One would think. But not if you’re involved in a religious quest for a saint for Prez.
Mind, I actually do see her as having foreign policy expertise. Some of it gained thru trial and error. And isn’t there something to be said for a demonstrated ability to learn from one’s mistakes?
One would think. But not if you’re involved in a religious quest for a saint for Prez.
Mind, I actually do see her as having foreign policy expertise. Some of it gained thru trial and error. And isn’t there something to be said for a demonstrated ability to learn from one’s mistakes?
One would think. But not if you’re involved in a religious quest for a saint for Prez.
Donald is still voting for Clinton, right?
Donald is still voting for Clinton, right?
Donald is still voting for Clinton, right?
“I’m okay with Clinton’s level of not corrupt.”
The discussion seems to be about whether or not Clinton’s individual acts of corruption are ‘worse’ than the average politician’s acts of corruption. I’m not sure they are, but I think that is a problem because the individual acts of corruption are probably more than we should be ok with. So in that sense Clinton represents the fact that to my mind ‘normal corruption’ has gotten out of hand.
Further than that, both Clintons have set up a super-charged system of these types of actions of perhaps barely tolerable corruption, and like micro-agressions, the whole is worse than the individual parts.
“I’m okay with Clinton’s level of not corrupt.”
The discussion seems to be about whether or not Clinton’s individual acts of corruption are ‘worse’ than the average politician’s acts of corruption. I’m not sure they are, but I think that is a problem because the individual acts of corruption are probably more than we should be ok with. So in that sense Clinton represents the fact that to my mind ‘normal corruption’ has gotten out of hand.
Further than that, both Clintons have set up a super-charged system of these types of actions of perhaps barely tolerable corruption, and like micro-agressions, the whole is worse than the individual parts.
“I’m okay with Clinton’s level of not corrupt.”
The discussion seems to be about whether or not Clinton’s individual acts of corruption are ‘worse’ than the average politician’s acts of corruption. I’m not sure they are, but I think that is a problem because the individual acts of corruption are probably more than we should be ok with. So in that sense Clinton represents the fact that to my mind ‘normal corruption’ has gotten out of hand.
Further than that, both Clintons have set up a super-charged system of these types of actions of perhaps barely tolerable corruption, and like micro-agressions, the whole is worse than the individual parts.
“Did you hate on Kerry this much, or are you a misogynist? ”
There it is, you disagree with me, you must be a deplorable.
“Did you hate on Kerry this much, or are you a misogynist? ”
There it is, you disagree with me, you must be a deplorable.
“Did you hate on Kerry this much, or are you a misogynist? ”
There it is, you disagree with me, you must be a deplorable.
So pass a law. All right. Let’s go!
1.This might come across as a bit drastic, but given the other rules below, it could be seen as an act of mercy: All Congresscritters and Senators are euthanized upon leaving public office.
2.Executive branch personnel can NEVER go to work for entities, or associated entities, they oversaw, let contracts too, made rulings on, etc., etc.
3.They are barred from paid lobbying for life.
4.They are barred from paid consulting work for life.
5.Too much money in politics? Look into who is spending it. Raise their taxes to the point that we can drown their net worth in a bath tub.
6.Raise marginal rates on incomes over $250k/year to the point where we can drown……
7.Lower the limit to which estate taxes apply. Raise the estate tax rate to nose-bleed levels.
8.All speeches made by public employees or ex public employees and/or elected officials shall be taped and/or transcribed and published within 24 hours of giving the speech.
9.Boards of Directors and CEO’s of financial institutions deemed to be of ‘systemic importance’ shall be appointed by the President and subject to confirmation by the Senate. Don’t like it? Take your bank elsewhere.
10.Lobbyists must, like sex offenders, be registered, and publicly disclose the sources and disposition of all income and expenses.
11.All tax returns should be in the public domain.
12. No 503(c)BS hidden donors. If you plump for somebody, have the guts to be known as such.
So pass a law. All right. Let’s go!
1.This might come across as a bit drastic, but given the other rules below, it could be seen as an act of mercy: All Congresscritters and Senators are euthanized upon leaving public office.
2.Executive branch personnel can NEVER go to work for entities, or associated entities, they oversaw, let contracts too, made rulings on, etc., etc.
3.They are barred from paid lobbying for life.
4.They are barred from paid consulting work for life.
5.Too much money in politics? Look into who is spending it. Raise their taxes to the point that we can drown their net worth in a bath tub.
6.Raise marginal rates on incomes over $250k/year to the point where we can drown……
7.Lower the limit to which estate taxes apply. Raise the estate tax rate to nose-bleed levels.
8.All speeches made by public employees or ex public employees and/or elected officials shall be taped and/or transcribed and published within 24 hours of giving the speech.
9.Boards of Directors and CEO’s of financial institutions deemed to be of ‘systemic importance’ shall be appointed by the President and subject to confirmation by the Senate. Don’t like it? Take your bank elsewhere.
10.Lobbyists must, like sex offenders, be registered, and publicly disclose the sources and disposition of all income and expenses.
11.All tax returns should be in the public domain.
12. No 503(c)BS hidden donors. If you plump for somebody, have the guts to be known as such.
So pass a law. All right. Let’s go!
1.This might come across as a bit drastic, but given the other rules below, it could be seen as an act of mercy: All Congresscritters and Senators are euthanized upon leaving public office.
2.Executive branch personnel can NEVER go to work for entities, or associated entities, they oversaw, let contracts too, made rulings on, etc., etc.
3.They are barred from paid lobbying for life.
4.They are barred from paid consulting work for life.
5.Too much money in politics? Look into who is spending it. Raise their taxes to the point that we can drown their net worth in a bath tub.
6.Raise marginal rates on incomes over $250k/year to the point where we can drown……
7.Lower the limit to which estate taxes apply. Raise the estate tax rate to nose-bleed levels.
8.All speeches made by public employees or ex public employees and/or elected officials shall be taped and/or transcribed and published within 24 hours of giving the speech.
9.Boards of Directors and CEO’s of financial institutions deemed to be of ‘systemic importance’ shall be appointed by the President and subject to confirmation by the Senate. Don’t like it? Take your bank elsewhere.
10.Lobbyists must, like sex offenders, be registered, and publicly disclose the sources and disposition of all income and expenses.
11.All tax returns should be in the public domain.
12. No 503(c)BS hidden donors. If you plump for somebody, have the guts to be known as such.
Yes, voting for Clinton. Lesser evil. She might even do some good things.
On foreign policy, trial and error is not exactly what I’d call Clinton’s record. A tendency to value toughness and intervention is apparently part of her DNA. She used Bush’s arguments and the only thing she seems to have learned was that a full scale invasion of an Arab country might not be a great idea. Plenty of people warned against Iraq and she refused to read the NIE which looks like an attempt at not knowing what she should have known, which is that the arguments for going into Iraq were weak. Safety in numbers and shared ignorance are the basic principles that would explain that. How was she to know it would be a political liability in 2008– if things went badly she probably figured she could explain it away with an oops, which worked in 2016.
There is something wrong wth a culture that turns out politicians like this. No one with her with her record on Iraq should be bragging about her foreign policy expertise. Not thatt one should single Clinton out– it’s the arrogance of being a politician in a superpower. You make a mistake, not admitting error until it is necessary for your political ambitions , and vote for a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people, based on exaggerations and lies it was your duty to expose and which you had the ability to expose and you still think you should be the most powerful person on earth. This is not particularly Clintonian — it’s American, or just the way powerful people think. A normal person thinking about the harm they helped cause would shrivel up and die. An American politician calls it experience.
Kerry I didn’t bash much at the time because Bush was actually in power, bringing torture back and It seemed like we all had to unite to get Bush out. At that time I also would have swallowed Clinton more easily, because we really didn’t have much choice. The country was still relatively hawkish and Kerry could talk about his Vietnam experience, which seemed like it would be a plus though of course he got swift boated. Dean was better, but he was railroaded out because of the “scream” . Kerry had in his past some genuine antiwar activism– later as a senator he helped expose collusion between the contras and drug smuggling. But he was far from ideal. Just better than Bush. And again, in a hawkish country you couldn’t expect a genuine antiwar candidate to have a chance. Dean was chewed up once or twice for saying things that were portrayed as insufficiently patriotic. Kerry would be less dangerous and more competent than Bush and I was willing to settle.
By 2008 it was generally conceded by all but the diehards that Iraq was a freaking disaster. We had a chance to discredit the idiots who pushed it once and for all, even if we couldn’t get war crimes trials.
But they’re back and some are endorsing Clinton. The Iraq War– oh, just a mistake. 300 million people in this country and the best most experienced person we could pick was a supporter of the most catastrophic mistake in US foreign policy history. God bless America.
Yes, voting for Clinton. Lesser evil. She might even do some good things.
On foreign policy, trial and error is not exactly what I’d call Clinton’s record. A tendency to value toughness and intervention is apparently part of her DNA. She used Bush’s arguments and the only thing she seems to have learned was that a full scale invasion of an Arab country might not be a great idea. Plenty of people warned against Iraq and she refused to read the NIE which looks like an attempt at not knowing what she should have known, which is that the arguments for going into Iraq were weak. Safety in numbers and shared ignorance are the basic principles that would explain that. How was she to know it would be a political liability in 2008– if things went badly she probably figured she could explain it away with an oops, which worked in 2016.
There is something wrong wth a culture that turns out politicians like this. No one with her with her record on Iraq should be bragging about her foreign policy expertise. Not thatt one should single Clinton out– it’s the arrogance of being a politician in a superpower. You make a mistake, not admitting error until it is necessary for your political ambitions , and vote for a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people, based on exaggerations and lies it was your duty to expose and which you had the ability to expose and you still think you should be the most powerful person on earth. This is not particularly Clintonian — it’s American, or just the way powerful people think. A normal person thinking about the harm they helped cause would shrivel up and die. An American politician calls it experience.
Kerry I didn’t bash much at the time because Bush was actually in power, bringing torture back and It seemed like we all had to unite to get Bush out. At that time I also would have swallowed Clinton more easily, because we really didn’t have much choice. The country was still relatively hawkish and Kerry could talk about his Vietnam experience, which seemed like it would be a plus though of course he got swift boated. Dean was better, but he was railroaded out because of the “scream” . Kerry had in his past some genuine antiwar activism– later as a senator he helped expose collusion between the contras and drug smuggling. But he was far from ideal. Just better than Bush. And again, in a hawkish country you couldn’t expect a genuine antiwar candidate to have a chance. Dean was chewed up once or twice for saying things that were portrayed as insufficiently patriotic. Kerry would be less dangerous and more competent than Bush and I was willing to settle.
By 2008 it was generally conceded by all but the diehards that Iraq was a freaking disaster. We had a chance to discredit the idiots who pushed it once and for all, even if we couldn’t get war crimes trials.
But they’re back and some are endorsing Clinton. The Iraq War– oh, just a mistake. 300 million people in this country and the best most experienced person we could pick was a supporter of the most catastrophic mistake in US foreign policy history. God bless America.
Yes, voting for Clinton. Lesser evil. She might even do some good things.
On foreign policy, trial and error is not exactly what I’d call Clinton’s record. A tendency to value toughness and intervention is apparently part of her DNA. She used Bush’s arguments and the only thing she seems to have learned was that a full scale invasion of an Arab country might not be a great idea. Plenty of people warned against Iraq and she refused to read the NIE which looks like an attempt at not knowing what she should have known, which is that the arguments for going into Iraq were weak. Safety in numbers and shared ignorance are the basic principles that would explain that. How was she to know it would be a political liability in 2008– if things went badly she probably figured she could explain it away with an oops, which worked in 2016.
There is something wrong wth a culture that turns out politicians like this. No one with her with her record on Iraq should be bragging about her foreign policy expertise. Not thatt one should single Clinton out– it’s the arrogance of being a politician in a superpower. You make a mistake, not admitting error until it is necessary for your political ambitions , and vote for a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people, based on exaggerations and lies it was your duty to expose and which you had the ability to expose and you still think you should be the most powerful person on earth. This is not particularly Clintonian — it’s American, or just the way powerful people think. A normal person thinking about the harm they helped cause would shrivel up and die. An American politician calls it experience.
Kerry I didn’t bash much at the time because Bush was actually in power, bringing torture back and It seemed like we all had to unite to get Bush out. At that time I also would have swallowed Clinton more easily, because we really didn’t have much choice. The country was still relatively hawkish and Kerry could talk about his Vietnam experience, which seemed like it would be a plus though of course he got swift boated. Dean was better, but he was railroaded out because of the “scream” . Kerry had in his past some genuine antiwar activism– later as a senator he helped expose collusion between the contras and drug smuggling. But he was far from ideal. Just better than Bush. And again, in a hawkish country you couldn’t expect a genuine antiwar candidate to have a chance. Dean was chewed up once or twice for saying things that were portrayed as insufficiently patriotic. Kerry would be less dangerous and more competent than Bush and I was willing to settle.
By 2008 it was generally conceded by all but the diehards that Iraq was a freaking disaster. We had a chance to discredit the idiots who pushed it once and for all, even if we couldn’t get war crimes trials.
But they’re back and some are endorsing Clinton. The Iraq War– oh, just a mistake. 300 million people in this country and the best most experienced person we could pick was a supporter of the most catastrophic mistake in US foreign policy history. God bless America.
So pass a law
But don’t be surprised if the cure turns out to be worse than the original disease.
Don’t think it could be? Consider:
– In California, we decided that “career politicians” were a bad thing. Too remote from real people, etc. So we enacted term limits.
Result: we lost expertise in how the legislative process works. And so, now our laws mostly get drafted by lobbyists. Because they are the only ones who are in the capital long enough to learn the system. Not what you’d call a huge step forward in making government reflect the needs and desires of those “real people”.
– In Congress, we decided that ear-marks were bad. So we got rid of them.
Result: no more congressional leadership, for all practical purposes. Because nobody has any carrots or sticks to provide any discipline. If you think congressional gridlock, and recurring government shutdowns, are great, you may be good with that. But if you think the government should do some actual governing, or if you would prefer that not all government decisions should default to the executive branch, you delight in the results of those good intentions may be limited.
So pass a law
But don’t be surprised if the cure turns out to be worse than the original disease.
Don’t think it could be? Consider:
– In California, we decided that “career politicians” were a bad thing. Too remote from real people, etc. So we enacted term limits.
Result: we lost expertise in how the legislative process works. And so, now our laws mostly get drafted by lobbyists. Because they are the only ones who are in the capital long enough to learn the system. Not what you’d call a huge step forward in making government reflect the needs and desires of those “real people”.
– In Congress, we decided that ear-marks were bad. So we got rid of them.
Result: no more congressional leadership, for all practical purposes. Because nobody has any carrots or sticks to provide any discipline. If you think congressional gridlock, and recurring government shutdowns, are great, you may be good with that. But if you think the government should do some actual governing, or if you would prefer that not all government decisions should default to the executive branch, you delight in the results of those good intentions may be limited.
So pass a law
But don’t be surprised if the cure turns out to be worse than the original disease.
Don’t think it could be? Consider:
– In California, we decided that “career politicians” were a bad thing. Too remote from real people, etc. So we enacted term limits.
Result: we lost expertise in how the legislative process works. And so, now our laws mostly get drafted by lobbyists. Because they are the only ones who are in the capital long enough to learn the system. Not what you’d call a huge step forward in making government reflect the needs and desires of those “real people”.
– In Congress, we decided that ear-marks were bad. So we got rid of them.
Result: no more congressional leadership, for all practical purposes. Because nobody has any carrots or sticks to provide any discipline. If you think congressional gridlock, and recurring government shutdowns, are great, you may be good with that. But if you think the government should do some actual governing, or if you would prefer that not all government decisions should default to the executive branch, you delight in the results of those good intentions may be limited.
By 2008 it was generally conceded by all but the diehards that Iraq was a freaking disaster.
just for data…
2008 was the low point for approval of the Iraq war: down to 36% at one point. but by 2015, opinion had moved back to where only 51% said it was a mistake.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx
as a country we’re not very consistent about this.
By 2008 it was generally conceded by all but the diehards that Iraq was a freaking disaster.
just for data…
2008 was the low point for approval of the Iraq war: down to 36% at one point. but by 2015, opinion had moved back to where only 51% said it was a mistake.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx
as a country we’re not very consistent about this.
By 2008 it was generally conceded by all but the diehards that Iraq was a freaking disaster.
just for data…
2008 was the low point for approval of the Iraq war: down to 36% at one point. but by 2015, opinion had moved back to where only 51% said it was a mistake.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx
as a country we’re not very consistent about this.
cleek: there are still some RWNJ dead-enders that say that the US should have “stayed in Vietnam until VICTORY!1!!”
Too bad they didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to take to the jungle and fight on, like those Japanese holdouts from WWII.
cleek: there are still some RWNJ dead-enders that say that the US should have “stayed in Vietnam until VICTORY!1!!”
Too bad they didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to take to the jungle and fight on, like those Japanese holdouts from WWII.
cleek: there are still some RWNJ dead-enders that say that the US should have “stayed in Vietnam until VICTORY!1!!”
Too bad they didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to take to the jungle and fight on, like those Japanese holdouts from WWII.
she refused to read the NIE which looks like an attempt at not knowing what she should have known
what did she already know before she had the opportunity to read the NIE ? what was in it that she didn’t already know ?
she refused to read the NIE which looks like an attempt at not knowing what she should have known
what did she already know before she had the opportunity to read the NIE ? what was in it that she didn’t already know ?
she refused to read the NIE which looks like an attempt at not knowing what she should have known
what did she already know before she had the opportunity to read the NIE ? what was in it that she didn’t already know ?
Kerry I didn’t bash much at the time because Bush was actually in power, bringing torture back and It seemed like we all had to unite to get Bush out.
Well, I’m glad you didn’t bash Kerry much, and were able to overlook some of his decisions in order to focus on his strengths.
It certainly seems just as important now to unite to keep Trump out. Thanks for planning to vote for Clinton, but perhaps you could focus on some of her strengths too, like her lifelong work on the domestic front for equality, healthcare, children, etc. Because you’re fairly consistent on opposing not only the Iraq war, but many other aspects of US foreign policy, I understand that you can’t be comfortable (with anyone, basically) but your charges of “corruption” smack of “Clinton rules” and you might want to rethink how necessary or helpful that is.
Kerry I didn’t bash much at the time because Bush was actually in power, bringing torture back and It seemed like we all had to unite to get Bush out.
Well, I’m glad you didn’t bash Kerry much, and were able to overlook some of his decisions in order to focus on his strengths.
It certainly seems just as important now to unite to keep Trump out. Thanks for planning to vote for Clinton, but perhaps you could focus on some of her strengths too, like her lifelong work on the domestic front for equality, healthcare, children, etc. Because you’re fairly consistent on opposing not only the Iraq war, but many other aspects of US foreign policy, I understand that you can’t be comfortable (with anyone, basically) but your charges of “corruption” smack of “Clinton rules” and you might want to rethink how necessary or helpful that is.
Kerry I didn’t bash much at the time because Bush was actually in power, bringing torture back and It seemed like we all had to unite to get Bush out.
Well, I’m glad you didn’t bash Kerry much, and were able to overlook some of his decisions in order to focus on his strengths.
It certainly seems just as important now to unite to keep Trump out. Thanks for planning to vote for Clinton, but perhaps you could focus on some of her strengths too, like her lifelong work on the domestic front for equality, healthcare, children, etc. Because you’re fairly consistent on opposing not only the Iraq war, but many other aspects of US foreign policy, I understand that you can’t be comfortable (with anyone, basically) but your charges of “corruption” smack of “Clinton rules” and you might want to rethink how necessary or helpful that is.
“as a country we’re not very consistent about this.”
Or maybe as a country, our pollsters, who have nothing better to do, go around Jay Leno-style asking people who have no idea what they are talking about questions about policy as if we were some kind of citizenry, or a polis even.
Better we should stick to questions about contestant exploits on reality shows or the latest chicken dredge at KFC, you know, the real stuff, like they did in classical Greece.
We’re no more informed (and I include myself in this) about a country like Iraq and what we are doing there than the young man in a Filipino barrio years ago who approached me and asked if I knew “Bob” from Chicago had any conception about the United States, though at least Filipinos, millions of them, actually come here to see what’s what.
But like Trump, if approached by a pollster, we furrow our brows and claim, out of the sheer terror of admitting we don’t know anything, as he did the other day, that his opinion about being against the Iraq War was so concerning to the Bush Administration at the time that THEY sent a delegation to him to take it all in — a total fabrication, but now 42% percent of the electorate believe that shit simply by virtue of Trump having said it and the hated media doing the fairly easy work of proving it bullshit.
We’re a super full of shit superpower.
“as a country we’re not very consistent about this.”
Or maybe as a country, our pollsters, who have nothing better to do, go around Jay Leno-style asking people who have no idea what they are talking about questions about policy as if we were some kind of citizenry, or a polis even.
Better we should stick to questions about contestant exploits on reality shows or the latest chicken dredge at KFC, you know, the real stuff, like they did in classical Greece.
We’re no more informed (and I include myself in this) about a country like Iraq and what we are doing there than the young man in a Filipino barrio years ago who approached me and asked if I knew “Bob” from Chicago had any conception about the United States, though at least Filipinos, millions of them, actually come here to see what’s what.
But like Trump, if approached by a pollster, we furrow our brows and claim, out of the sheer terror of admitting we don’t know anything, as he did the other day, that his opinion about being against the Iraq War was so concerning to the Bush Administration at the time that THEY sent a delegation to him to take it all in — a total fabrication, but now 42% percent of the electorate believe that shit simply by virtue of Trump having said it and the hated media doing the fairly easy work of proving it bullshit.
We’re a super full of shit superpower.
“as a country we’re not very consistent about this.”
Or maybe as a country, our pollsters, who have nothing better to do, go around Jay Leno-style asking people who have no idea what they are talking about questions about policy as if we were some kind of citizenry, or a polis even.
Better we should stick to questions about contestant exploits on reality shows or the latest chicken dredge at KFC, you know, the real stuff, like they did in classical Greece.
We’re no more informed (and I include myself in this) about a country like Iraq and what we are doing there than the young man in a Filipino barrio years ago who approached me and asked if I knew “Bob” from Chicago had any conception about the United States, though at least Filipinos, millions of them, actually come here to see what’s what.
But like Trump, if approached by a pollster, we furrow our brows and claim, out of the sheer terror of admitting we don’t know anything, as he did the other day, that his opinion about being against the Iraq War was so concerning to the Bush Administration at the time that THEY sent a delegation to him to take it all in — a total fabrication, but now 42% percent of the electorate believe that shit simply by virtue of Trump having said it and the hated media doing the fairly easy work of proving it bullshit.
We’re a super full of shit superpower.
Corruption as an issue I mostly avoid talking about because I don’t follow it closely, except where it directly touches on some issue I already follow, so I immediately thought of Clinton/Saban and Christie/Adelson. That stuff isn’t illegal, AFAIK. But clearly rich people have enormous influence and in that case they don’t conceal it, because they think they are working for a noble cause. I would take this to mean that this kind of thing is probably very common, but normally done more quietly, as usually it would be harder to make the case that issue X which benefits rich person Y is a noble cause.
I couldn’t say that the Clintons are worse than normal without really diving into a whole subject area that I’m not that interested in. But if one sets aside the Clintons, in general the politicians and lobbyists and rich people have much more influence than they should and this is a bipartisan problem.
Cleek–Thanks. I half expect that there will be a revisionist view someday that says Iraq was a great success. If they ever have peace and a functioning democracy or at least relative tranquillity, we will take all the credit and Bush will be a hero.
Corruption as an issue I mostly avoid talking about because I don’t follow it closely, except where it directly touches on some issue I already follow, so I immediately thought of Clinton/Saban and Christie/Adelson. That stuff isn’t illegal, AFAIK. But clearly rich people have enormous influence and in that case they don’t conceal it, because they think they are working for a noble cause. I would take this to mean that this kind of thing is probably very common, but normally done more quietly, as usually it would be harder to make the case that issue X which benefits rich person Y is a noble cause.
I couldn’t say that the Clintons are worse than normal without really diving into a whole subject area that I’m not that interested in. But if one sets aside the Clintons, in general the politicians and lobbyists and rich people have much more influence than they should and this is a bipartisan problem.
Cleek–Thanks. I half expect that there will be a revisionist view someday that says Iraq was a great success. If they ever have peace and a functioning democracy or at least relative tranquillity, we will take all the credit and Bush will be a hero.
Corruption as an issue I mostly avoid talking about because I don’t follow it closely, except where it directly touches on some issue I already follow, so I immediately thought of Clinton/Saban and Christie/Adelson. That stuff isn’t illegal, AFAIK. But clearly rich people have enormous influence and in that case they don’t conceal it, because they think they are working for a noble cause. I would take this to mean that this kind of thing is probably very common, but normally done more quietly, as usually it would be harder to make the case that issue X which benefits rich person Y is a noble cause.
I couldn’t say that the Clintons are worse than normal without really diving into a whole subject area that I’m not that interested in. But if one sets aside the Clintons, in general the politicians and lobbyists and rich people have much more influence than they should and this is a bipartisan problem.
Cleek–Thanks. I half expect that there will be a revisionist view someday that says Iraq was a great success. If they ever have peace and a functioning democracy or at least relative tranquillity, we will take all the credit and Bush will be a hero.
I hadn’t been reading Lawyers Guns and Money lately, so I missed this post–
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/09/trade-trump-and-the-debate
The LGM people can’t be mistaken for Trump supporters or Stein supporters or third party sympathizers, to put it mildly, or for people who are soft on racists.
I hadn’t been reading Lawyers Guns and Money lately, so I missed this post–
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/09/trade-trump-and-the-debate
The LGM people can’t be mistaken for Trump supporters or Stein supporters or third party sympathizers, to put it mildly, or for people who are soft on racists.
I hadn’t been reading Lawyers Guns and Money lately, so I missed this post–
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/09/trade-trump-and-the-debate
The LGM people can’t be mistaken for Trump supporters or Stein supporters or third party sympathizers, to put it mildly, or for people who are soft on racists.
And as I found from visiting Dean Baker, the NYT is running a big story on the same subject–
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/economy/more-wealth-more-jobs-but-not-for-everyone-what-fuels-the-backlash-on-trade.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
And as I found from visiting Dean Baker, the NYT is running a big story on the same subject–
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/economy/more-wealth-more-jobs-but-not-for-everyone-what-fuels-the-backlash-on-trade.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
And as I found from visiting Dean Baker, the NYT is running a big story on the same subject–
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/economy/more-wealth-more-jobs-but-not-for-everyone-what-fuels-the-backlash-on-trade.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Dean beats the same drums all the time…sometimes kinda’ boring, but his points bear repeating.
I look forward to his forthcoming (free) book.
Dean beats the same drums all the time…sometimes kinda’ boring, but his points bear repeating.
I look forward to his forthcoming (free) book.
Dean beats the same drums all the time…sometimes kinda’ boring, but his points bear repeating.
I look forward to his forthcoming (free) book.
The LGM people can’t be mistaken for Trump supporters or Stein supporters or third party sympathizers, to put it mildly, or for people who are soft on racists.
I spend a lot of time at LGM, and you’re right, they’re not Trump supporters, or soft on racism. However, Erik Loomis tends toward protectionism, and blames trade agreements for way too much of the problems of the working class.
In fact, automation is more responsible. From the NYT article you linked to:
I like a lot of Erik’s posts and views, but I don’t think that he’s correct on the subject of the evils of trade. That said, the wealth that is created by trade needs to be distributed better. Our income inequality problem won’t be fixed until we tax wealth.
The LGM people can’t be mistaken for Trump supporters or Stein supporters or third party sympathizers, to put it mildly, or for people who are soft on racists.
I spend a lot of time at LGM, and you’re right, they’re not Trump supporters, or soft on racism. However, Erik Loomis tends toward protectionism, and blames trade agreements for way too much of the problems of the working class.
In fact, automation is more responsible. From the NYT article you linked to:
I like a lot of Erik’s posts and views, but I don’t think that he’s correct on the subject of the evils of trade. That said, the wealth that is created by trade needs to be distributed better. Our income inequality problem won’t be fixed until we tax wealth.
The LGM people can’t be mistaken for Trump supporters or Stein supporters or third party sympathizers, to put it mildly, or for people who are soft on racists.
I spend a lot of time at LGM, and you’re right, they’re not Trump supporters, or soft on racism. However, Erik Loomis tends toward protectionism, and blames trade agreements for way too much of the problems of the working class.
In fact, automation is more responsible. From the NYT article you linked to:
I like a lot of Erik’s posts and views, but I don’t think that he’s correct on the subject of the evils of trade. That said, the wealth that is created by trade needs to be distributed better. Our income inequality problem won’t be fixed until we tax wealth.
In fact, automation is more responsible.
Not that I meant to imply that automation is bad either. The fact is that the job market is always changing, and people need to learn to do new things. They need help learning, and adjusting, and I have no problem with longer unemployment insurance, a UBI, early retirement on Social Security and other safety net measures, paid for by some of the increase in wealth that the 1% has seen.
In fact, automation is more responsible.
Not that I meant to imply that automation is bad either. The fact is that the job market is always changing, and people need to learn to do new things. They need help learning, and adjusting, and I have no problem with longer unemployment insurance, a UBI, early retirement on Social Security and other safety net measures, paid for by some of the increase in wealth that the 1% has seen.
In fact, automation is more responsible.
Not that I meant to imply that automation is bad either. The fact is that the job market is always changing, and people need to learn to do new things. They need help learning, and adjusting, and I have no problem with longer unemployment insurance, a UBI, early retirement on Social Security and other safety net measures, paid for by some of the increase in wealth that the 1% has seen.
“The fact is that the job market is always changing, and people need to learn to do new things. ”
This was ok when the changes happened over generations, but when industrial Midwest gets slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replaces a whole workforce this sentiment seems a little dismissive.
“The fact is that the job market is always changing, and people need to learn to do new things. ”
This was ok when the changes happened over generations, but when industrial Midwest gets slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replaces a whole workforce this sentiment seems a little dismissive.
“The fact is that the job market is always changing, and people need to learn to do new things. ”
This was ok when the changes happened over generations, but when industrial Midwest gets slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replaces a whole workforce this sentiment seems a little dismissive.
Only 13%? Well, that’s a big impact at the margin, and as Marty points out, it happened quite quickly….over a matter of a couple decades.
Automation is great, too, but again, there are distributional impacts, and one of those favorite toys of economists, marginal productivity theory, has failed miserably.
The real income gains from increased productivity have not been shared fairly.
We have deliberately put our manufacturing workers in direct competition with lower cost workers abroad. Then we adopted public policies that shift incomes upward while protecting favored occupations from similar competitive forces.
So just repeating mantras like “people need to learn new things” rings hollow to those bearing the brunt of these changes.
Only 13%? Well, that’s a big impact at the margin, and as Marty points out, it happened quite quickly….over a matter of a couple decades.
Automation is great, too, but again, there are distributional impacts, and one of those favorite toys of economists, marginal productivity theory, has failed miserably.
The real income gains from increased productivity have not been shared fairly.
We have deliberately put our manufacturing workers in direct competition with lower cost workers abroad. Then we adopted public policies that shift incomes upward while protecting favored occupations from similar competitive forces.
So just repeating mantras like “people need to learn new things” rings hollow to those bearing the brunt of these changes.
Only 13%? Well, that’s a big impact at the margin, and as Marty points out, it happened quite quickly….over a matter of a couple decades.
Automation is great, too, but again, there are distributional impacts, and one of those favorite toys of economists, marginal productivity theory, has failed miserably.
The real income gains from increased productivity have not been shared fairly.
We have deliberately put our manufacturing workers in direct competition with lower cost workers abroad. Then we adopted public policies that shift incomes upward while protecting favored occupations from similar competitive forces.
So just repeating mantras like “people need to learn new things” rings hollow to those bearing the brunt of these changes.
This was ok when the changes happened over generations, but when industrial Midwest gets slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replaces a whole workforce this sentiment seems a little dismissive.
I didn’t dismiss them though. I said they should be given whatever assistance is needed. If they don’t want it, they’re free to figure out what to do themselves.
This was ok when the changes happened over generations, but when industrial Midwest gets slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replaces a whole workforce this sentiment seems a little dismissive.
I didn’t dismiss them though. I said they should be given whatever assistance is needed. If they don’t want it, they’re free to figure out what to do themselves.
This was ok when the changes happened over generations, but when industrial Midwest gets slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replaces a whole workforce this sentiment seems a little dismissive.
I didn’t dismiss them though. I said they should be given whatever assistance is needed. If they don’t want it, they’re free to figure out what to do themselves.
So just repeating mantras like “people need to learn new things” rings hollow to those bearing the brunt of these changes.
Well, but people actually do need to learn new things.
But that wasn’t the sum total of my comment, in that I agree with you that we need to share productivity gains more fairly.
So just repeating mantras like “people need to learn new things” rings hollow to those bearing the brunt of these changes.
Well, but people actually do need to learn new things.
But that wasn’t the sum total of my comment, in that I agree with you that we need to share productivity gains more fairly.
So just repeating mantras like “people need to learn new things” rings hollow to those bearing the brunt of these changes.
Well, but people actually do need to learn new things.
But that wasn’t the sum total of my comment, in that I agree with you that we need to share productivity gains more fairly.
I like a lot of Erik’s posts and views, but I don’t think that he’s correct on the subject of the evils of trade.
You are incorrect on this. It’s not simply “trade” per se (and yes, a very contentious subject at LGM-see comment thread), it’s policies that promote unrestrained capital mobility, and the untethering of this “freedom” from social responsibilities such as worker safety & health and environmental degradation that is the issue for Prof. Loomis.
I like a lot of Erik’s posts and views, but I don’t think that he’s correct on the subject of the evils of trade.
You are incorrect on this. It’s not simply “trade” per se (and yes, a very contentious subject at LGM-see comment thread), it’s policies that promote unrestrained capital mobility, and the untethering of this “freedom” from social responsibilities such as worker safety & health and environmental degradation that is the issue for Prof. Loomis.
I like a lot of Erik’s posts and views, but I don’t think that he’s correct on the subject of the evils of trade.
You are incorrect on this. It’s not simply “trade” per se (and yes, a very contentious subject at LGM-see comment thread), it’s policies that promote unrestrained capital mobility, and the untethering of this “freedom” from social responsibilities such as worker safety & health and environmental degradation that is the issue for Prof. Loomis.
“seems a little dismissive”
Not when you add in the rest of the comment:
“They need help learning, and adjusting, and I have no problem with longer unemployment insurance, a UBI, early retirement on Social Security and other safety net measures, paid for by some of the increase in wealth that the 1% has seen.
If we don’t like the industrial Midwest getting slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replacing while work forces, then we and our private sector would stop doing it.
But we do like it. We did it on purpose. There is nothing organic about it. People are overhead and overhead has got to fucking go.
But I’m told stopping the behavior is nigh impossible, even inevitable, and the rest of sapient’s prescription for ameliorating the bad effects of these changes has been made impossible as well by the usual suspects, including Donald Trump, given the evidence of how he treats all his employees, not just the fat ones.
“seems a little dismissive”
Not when you add in the rest of the comment:
“They need help learning, and adjusting, and I have no problem with longer unemployment insurance, a UBI, early retirement on Social Security and other safety net measures, paid for by some of the increase in wealth that the 1% has seen.
If we don’t like the industrial Midwest getting slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replacing while work forces, then we and our private sector would stop doing it.
But we do like it. We did it on purpose. There is nothing organic about it. People are overhead and overhead has got to fucking go.
But I’m told stopping the behavior is nigh impossible, even inevitable, and the rest of sapient’s prescription for ameliorating the bad effects of these changes has been made impossible as well by the usual suspects, including Donald Trump, given the evidence of how he treats all his employees, not just the fat ones.
“seems a little dismissive”
Not when you add in the rest of the comment:
“They need help learning, and adjusting, and I have no problem with longer unemployment insurance, a UBI, early retirement on Social Security and other safety net measures, paid for by some of the increase in wealth that the 1% has seen.
If we don’t like the industrial Midwest getting slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replacing while work forces, then we and our private sector would stop doing it.
But we do like it. We did it on purpose. There is nothing organic about it. People are overhead and overhead has got to fucking go.
But I’m told stopping the behavior is nigh impossible, even inevitable, and the rest of sapient’s prescription for ameliorating the bad effects of these changes has been made impossible as well by the usual suspects, including Donald Trump, given the evidence of how he treats all his employees, not just the fat ones.
“whole” work forces is what you wrote, not “while”
“whole” work forces is what you wrote, not “while”
“whole” work forces is what you wrote, not “while”
it’s policies that promote unrestrained capital mobility, and the untethering of this “freedom” from social responsibilities such as worker safety & health and environmental degradation that is the issue for Prof. Loomis.
First, thanks Count, for reading my entire comment.
Second, we could argue about what Loomis himself argues, but I prefer to do that over at his blog. I bought his book and read it, and disagree with his emphasis. We could, perhaps, negotiate better trade agreements, although multilateral negotiations are very difficult. But even without better trade agreements, we could certainly enact separate domestic policies that would mitigate the ill effects.
For the most part, trade has made the world wealthier, and has brought a lot of people out of the direst poverty in developing countries (although, obviously, a lot of exploitation happens there, and that needs to be addressed as well). I don’t think it’s a simple problem, but the solution isn’t to abandon trade.
it’s policies that promote unrestrained capital mobility, and the untethering of this “freedom” from social responsibilities such as worker safety & health and environmental degradation that is the issue for Prof. Loomis.
First, thanks Count, for reading my entire comment.
Second, we could argue about what Loomis himself argues, but I prefer to do that over at his blog. I bought his book and read it, and disagree with his emphasis. We could, perhaps, negotiate better trade agreements, although multilateral negotiations are very difficult. But even without better trade agreements, we could certainly enact separate domestic policies that would mitigate the ill effects.
For the most part, trade has made the world wealthier, and has brought a lot of people out of the direst poverty in developing countries (although, obviously, a lot of exploitation happens there, and that needs to be addressed as well). I don’t think it’s a simple problem, but the solution isn’t to abandon trade.
it’s policies that promote unrestrained capital mobility, and the untethering of this “freedom” from social responsibilities such as worker safety & health and environmental degradation that is the issue for Prof. Loomis.
First, thanks Count, for reading my entire comment.
Second, we could argue about what Loomis himself argues, but I prefer to do that over at his blog. I bought his book and read it, and disagree with his emphasis. We could, perhaps, negotiate better trade agreements, although multilateral negotiations are very difficult. But even without better trade agreements, we could certainly enact separate domestic policies that would mitigate the ill effects.
For the most part, trade has made the world wealthier, and has brought a lot of people out of the direst poverty in developing countries (although, obviously, a lot of exploitation happens there, and that needs to be addressed as well). I don’t think it’s a simple problem, but the solution isn’t to abandon trade.
but the solution isn’t to abandon trade.
Straw man. Not an argument anybody here, or Loomis is making, but then again, you have been admonished on this very point on this very subject several times previously.
You are not “making adjustments”.
but the solution isn’t to abandon trade.
Straw man. Not an argument anybody here, or Loomis is making, but then again, you have been admonished on this very point on this very subject several times previously.
You are not “making adjustments”.
but the solution isn’t to abandon trade.
Straw man. Not an argument anybody here, or Loomis is making, but then again, you have been admonished on this very point on this very subject several times previously.
You are not “making adjustments”.
bobbyp, you linked to Erik’s post that said this: “NAFTA is indeed the worst trade deal in history. It was a complete disaster for the working class of the United States and it was a complete disaster for the working class of Mexico.”
The evidence for being bad for the United States working class is mixed, but by no means can anyone say that it was a “complete disaster”. In sum, it probably brought more good than harm.
bobbyp, you linked to Erik’s post that said this: “NAFTA is indeed the worst trade deal in history. It was a complete disaster for the working class of the United States and it was a complete disaster for the working class of Mexico.”
The evidence for being bad for the United States working class is mixed, but by no means can anyone say that it was a “complete disaster”. In sum, it probably brought more good than harm.
bobbyp, you linked to Erik’s post that said this: “NAFTA is indeed the worst trade deal in history. It was a complete disaster for the working class of the United States and it was a complete disaster for the working class of Mexico.”
The evidence for being bad for the United States working class is mixed, but by no means can anyone say that it was a “complete disaster”. In sum, it probably brought more good than harm.
i’m pretty sure there some native Americans who could name worse trade deals.
i’m pretty sure there some native Americans who could name worse trade deals.
i’m pretty sure there some native Americans who could name worse trade deals.
“The fact is that the job market is always changing, and people need to learn to do new things. ”
This was ok when the changes happened over generations, but when industrial Midwest gets slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replaces a whole workforce this sentiment seems a little dismissive.
How is it dismissive to note, accurately, that the job market is always changing? Or that people will need to learn new things to adapt to those changes?
I’m trying to remember the last time that technology and the job market only changed over generations. I’d say you have to look back before the industrial revolution — so a couple of centuries. Granted the speed of change isn’t constant. But anyone who got a job right out of school, learned it, and never had to learn something new between then and when he retired in his mid-60 caught a very narrow window in a very limited range of industries.
Certainly there are people, even a lot of people, who would much prefer a world where they didn’t have to keep learning new things. But unless you are willing to go off grid and do substistance farming (or hunting and gathering, I suppose), that isn’t really an option. And hasn’t been for a long time.
There are people who do take that option, because they are willing to pay the price, in effort and reduced material standard of living, required. But for those who are not willing (or not able) to do so, all we can say is “the universe isn’t designed that way.” We can offer help in learning the new stuff. But there really isn’t a viable way to force the world to stop changing, let alone go back.
“The fact is that the job market is always changing, and people need to learn to do new things. ”
This was ok when the changes happened over generations, but when industrial Midwest gets slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replaces a whole workforce this sentiment seems a little dismissive.
How is it dismissive to note, accurately, that the job market is always changing? Or that people will need to learn new things to adapt to those changes?
I’m trying to remember the last time that technology and the job market only changed over generations. I’d say you have to look back before the industrial revolution — so a couple of centuries. Granted the speed of change isn’t constant. But anyone who got a job right out of school, learned it, and never had to learn something new between then and when he retired in his mid-60 caught a very narrow window in a very limited range of industries.
Certainly there are people, even a lot of people, who would much prefer a world where they didn’t have to keep learning new things. But unless you are willing to go off grid and do substistance farming (or hunting and gathering, I suppose), that isn’t really an option. And hasn’t been for a long time.
There are people who do take that option, because they are willing to pay the price, in effort and reduced material standard of living, required. But for those who are not willing (or not able) to do so, all we can say is “the universe isn’t designed that way.” We can offer help in learning the new stuff. But there really isn’t a viable way to force the world to stop changing, let alone go back.
“The fact is that the job market is always changing, and people need to learn to do new things. ”
This was ok when the changes happened over generations, but when industrial Midwest gets slammed by the shift to a service economy or technology replaces a whole workforce this sentiment seems a little dismissive.
How is it dismissive to note, accurately, that the job market is always changing? Or that people will need to learn new things to adapt to those changes?
I’m trying to remember the last time that technology and the job market only changed over generations. I’d say you have to look back before the industrial revolution — so a couple of centuries. Granted the speed of change isn’t constant. But anyone who got a job right out of school, learned it, and never had to learn something new between then and when he retired in his mid-60 caught a very narrow window in a very limited range of industries.
Certainly there are people, even a lot of people, who would much prefer a world where they didn’t have to keep learning new things. But unless you are willing to go off grid and do substistance farming (or hunting and gathering, I suppose), that isn’t really an option. And hasn’t been for a long time.
There are people who do take that option, because they are willing to pay the price, in effort and reduced material standard of living, required. But for those who are not willing (or not able) to do so, all we can say is “the universe isn’t designed that way.” We can offer help in learning the new stuff. But there really isn’t a viable way to force the world to stop changing, let alone go back.
To tackle your previous comment, wj, just to note that there are plenty of healthy, functioning democracies with party systems that manage to get by just fine without dishing out pork barrel projects. I read that article last month too, but I’m not convinced of the truth of it.
To tackle your previous comment, wj, just to note that there are plenty of healthy, functioning democracies with party systems that manage to get by just fine without dishing out pork barrel projects. I read that article last month too, but I’m not convinced of the truth of it.
To tackle your previous comment, wj, just to note that there are plenty of healthy, functioning democracies with party systems that manage to get by just fine without dishing out pork barrel projects. I read that article last month too, but I’m not convinced of the truth of it.
Baker has a paper (probably one of many) from 2008 about why according to economic theory free trade deals would be expected to hurt workers.
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/trade_2008_01.pdf
Baker has a paper (probably one of many) from 2008 about why according to economic theory free trade deals would be expected to hurt workers.
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/trade_2008_01.pdf
Baker has a paper (probably one of many) from 2008 about why according to economic theory free trade deals would be expected to hurt workers.
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/trade_2008_01.pdf
“But anyone who got a job right out of school, learned it, and never had to learn something new between then and when he retired in his mid-60 caught a very narrow window in a very limited range of industries. ”
I disagree with almost all of your comment, this in particular. The end of the textile industry in this country happened over generations, leaving places with high unemployment, but not a generations worth.
I left school and stayed in the same industry for 35 years, haven’t you(rhetorical question not asking for personal info). I think most people develop skills that they plan to leverage for their working life. Although my background includes some other things, after my late twenties I have pretty much been in software development (or management of) related jobs.
Well, until I got too old. What retraining should I be doing?
“But anyone who got a job right out of school, learned it, and never had to learn something new between then and when he retired in his mid-60 caught a very narrow window in a very limited range of industries. ”
I disagree with almost all of your comment, this in particular. The end of the textile industry in this country happened over generations, leaving places with high unemployment, but not a generations worth.
I left school and stayed in the same industry for 35 years, haven’t you(rhetorical question not asking for personal info). I think most people develop skills that they plan to leverage for their working life. Although my background includes some other things, after my late twenties I have pretty much been in software development (or management of) related jobs.
Well, until I got too old. What retraining should I be doing?
“But anyone who got a job right out of school, learned it, and never had to learn something new between then and when he retired in his mid-60 caught a very narrow window in a very limited range of industries. ”
I disagree with almost all of your comment, this in particular. The end of the textile industry in this country happened over generations, leaving places with high unemployment, but not a generations worth.
I left school and stayed in the same industry for 35 years, haven’t you(rhetorical question not asking for personal info). I think most people develop skills that they plan to leverage for their working life. Although my background includes some other things, after my late twenties I have pretty much been in software development (or management of) related jobs.
Well, until I got too old. What retraining should I be doing?
We can offer help in learning the new stuff. But there really isn’t a viable way to force the world to stop changing, let alone go back.
I appreciate this comment, wj. In so many ways, we want the world to change. Industries that pollute, that cause global warming, etc. – we need to move away from those. We want to make it cleaner and less expensive for people all over the world to have the comfort and options that we in the USA have taken for granted for the last century.
As we get rid of coal, for example, lots of people lose jobs. But we need to get rid of the coal industry, as best we can do it. If we’d been smart, we would have accelerated this process long ago to ward off climate change. As it is, we’re going to face huge changes just because of the weather. This, and many other problems, we have to face as a world community. Globalization helps us begin to look at things that way.
Obviously, we need to mitigate the effects on people who are harmed, which we have not been adequately doing, largely because of our unwillingness to tax wealth and distribute it.
We can offer help in learning the new stuff. But there really isn’t a viable way to force the world to stop changing, let alone go back.
I appreciate this comment, wj. In so many ways, we want the world to change. Industries that pollute, that cause global warming, etc. – we need to move away from those. We want to make it cleaner and less expensive for people all over the world to have the comfort and options that we in the USA have taken for granted for the last century.
As we get rid of coal, for example, lots of people lose jobs. But we need to get rid of the coal industry, as best we can do it. If we’d been smart, we would have accelerated this process long ago to ward off climate change. As it is, we’re going to face huge changes just because of the weather. This, and many other problems, we have to face as a world community. Globalization helps us begin to look at things that way.
Obviously, we need to mitigate the effects on people who are harmed, which we have not been adequately doing, largely because of our unwillingness to tax wealth and distribute it.
We can offer help in learning the new stuff. But there really isn’t a viable way to force the world to stop changing, let alone go back.
I appreciate this comment, wj. In so many ways, we want the world to change. Industries that pollute, that cause global warming, etc. – we need to move away from those. We want to make it cleaner and less expensive for people all over the world to have the comfort and options that we in the USA have taken for granted for the last century.
As we get rid of coal, for example, lots of people lose jobs. But we need to get rid of the coal industry, as best we can do it. If we’d been smart, we would have accelerated this process long ago to ward off climate change. As it is, we’re going to face huge changes just because of the weather. This, and many other problems, we have to face as a world community. Globalization helps us begin to look at things that way.
Obviously, we need to mitigate the effects on people who are harmed, which we have not been adequately doing, largely because of our unwillingness to tax wealth and distribute it.
“just to note that there are plenty of healthy, functioning democracies with party systems that manage to get by just fine without dishing out pork barrel projects.”
I want to point out there is a difference between pork barrel projects and earmarks.
I have no idea how other Democracies deal with it but I suspect some form of “vote for my important project and I will vote for your important bill” exists lots of places.
The problem with killing earmarks is it took away a large part of what made Lyndon Johnson and Tip O’Neill and etc. successful at governing, the ability to get votes for important things.
“just to note that there are plenty of healthy, functioning democracies with party systems that manage to get by just fine without dishing out pork barrel projects.”
I want to point out there is a difference between pork barrel projects and earmarks.
I have no idea how other Democracies deal with it but I suspect some form of “vote for my important project and I will vote for your important bill” exists lots of places.
The problem with killing earmarks is it took away a large part of what made Lyndon Johnson and Tip O’Neill and etc. successful at governing, the ability to get votes for important things.
“just to note that there are plenty of healthy, functioning democracies with party systems that manage to get by just fine without dishing out pork barrel projects.”
I want to point out there is a difference between pork barrel projects and earmarks.
I have no idea how other Democracies deal with it but I suspect some form of “vote for my important project and I will vote for your important bill” exists lots of places.
The problem with killing earmarks is it took away a large part of what made Lyndon Johnson and Tip O’Neill and etc. successful at governing, the ability to get votes for important things.
Something positive is happening.
I left school and stayed in the same industry for 35 years, haven’t you(rhetorical question not asking for personal info).
No. I’ve had to change jobs, and my former industry, where I had the best pay and benefits, has downsized substantially. It has happened across the economy to a certain extent, although some sectors have obviously been hit harder.
I’m sorry that you, Marty, have had late-in-life trouble – I know many other people in that situation because of age discrimination. I think we can expand the safety net to improve things (with, for example, more robust unemployment insurance).
Something positive is happening.
I left school and stayed in the same industry for 35 years, haven’t you(rhetorical question not asking for personal info).
No. I’ve had to change jobs, and my former industry, where I had the best pay and benefits, has downsized substantially. It has happened across the economy to a certain extent, although some sectors have obviously been hit harder.
I’m sorry that you, Marty, have had late-in-life trouble – I know many other people in that situation because of age discrimination. I think we can expand the safety net to improve things (with, for example, more robust unemployment insurance).
Something positive is happening.
I left school and stayed in the same industry for 35 years, haven’t you(rhetorical question not asking for personal info).
No. I’ve had to change jobs, and my former industry, where I had the best pay and benefits, has downsized substantially. It has happened across the economy to a certain extent, although some sectors have obviously been hit harder.
I’m sorry that you, Marty, have had late-in-life trouble – I know many other people in that situation because of age discrimination. I think we can expand the safety net to improve things (with, for example, more robust unemployment insurance).
The problem with killing earmarks is it took away a large part of what made Lyndon Johnson and Tip O’Neill and etc. successful at governing, the ability to get votes for important things.
I agree.
The problem with killing earmarks is it took away a large part of what made Lyndon Johnson and Tip O’Neill and etc. successful at governing, the ability to get votes for important things.
I agree.
The problem with killing earmarks is it took away a large part of what made Lyndon Johnson and Tip O’Neill and etc. successful at governing, the ability to get votes for important things.
I agree.
It has happened across the economy to a certain extent, although some sectors have obviously been hit harder.
But (and sorry to have to add to this comment), other jobs have been created, and still more would be if we had more government spending on infrastructure and other public initiatives.
It has happened across the economy to a certain extent, although some sectors have obviously been hit harder.
But (and sorry to have to add to this comment), other jobs have been created, and still more would be if we had more government spending on infrastructure and other public initiatives.
It has happened across the economy to a certain extent, although some sectors have obviously been hit harder.
But (and sorry to have to add to this comment), other jobs have been created, and still more would be if we had more government spending on infrastructure and other public initiatives.
speaking of weeping for the future …
a day after overriding Obama’s veto, the GOP leadership is blaming Obama for the bill they just passed.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/key-u-senator-tried-compromise-saudi-sept-11-151953051.html?ref=gs
speaking of weeping for the future …
a day after overriding Obama’s veto, the GOP leadership is blaming Obama for the bill they just passed.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/key-u-senator-tried-compromise-saudi-sept-11-151953051.html?ref=gs
speaking of weeping for the future …
a day after overriding Obama’s veto, the GOP leadership is blaming Obama for the bill they just passed.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/key-u-senator-tried-compromise-saudi-sept-11-151953051.html?ref=gs
The problem with killing earmarks is it took away a large part of what made Lyndon Johnson and Tip O’Neill and etc. successful at governing, the ability to get votes for important things.
Wasn’t getting rid of earmarks a GOP thing (cough, cough)?
In any event, standard issue “wheeling and dealing” is less a factor given that our two major parties are becoming more ideologically cohesive…no more liberal Republicans, no more southern fried CSA Democrats.
When there can be no compromise, there will be no compromise (The Law of Expectoration of Political Energy). Somebody’s gotta’ win.
I don’t believe we have been this divided since the great Prairie Rebellion and labor strife of the 1890’s.
The problem with killing earmarks is it took away a large part of what made Lyndon Johnson and Tip O’Neill and etc. successful at governing, the ability to get votes for important things.
Wasn’t getting rid of earmarks a GOP thing (cough, cough)?
In any event, standard issue “wheeling and dealing” is less a factor given that our two major parties are becoming more ideologically cohesive…no more liberal Republicans, no more southern fried CSA Democrats.
When there can be no compromise, there will be no compromise (The Law of Expectoration of Political Energy). Somebody’s gotta’ win.
I don’t believe we have been this divided since the great Prairie Rebellion and labor strife of the 1890’s.
The problem with killing earmarks is it took away a large part of what made Lyndon Johnson and Tip O’Neill and etc. successful at governing, the ability to get votes for important things.
Wasn’t getting rid of earmarks a GOP thing (cough, cough)?
In any event, standard issue “wheeling and dealing” is less a factor given that our two major parties are becoming more ideologically cohesive…no more liberal Republicans, no more southern fried CSA Democrats.
When there can be no compromise, there will be no compromise (The Law of Expectoration of Political Energy). Somebody’s gotta’ win.
I don’t believe we have been this divided since the great Prairie Rebellion and labor strife of the 1890’s.
Wasn’t getting rid of earmarks a GOP thing (cough, cough)?
Or should we say, sniff, sniff? Or maybe, snort, snort?
Wasn’t getting rid of earmarks a GOP thing (cough, cough)?
Or should we say, sniff, sniff? Or maybe, snort, snort?
Wasn’t getting rid of earmarks a GOP thing (cough, cough)?
Or should we say, sniff, sniff? Or maybe, snort, snort?
I left school and stayed in the same industry for 35 years, haven’t you(rhetorical question not asking for personal info).
While I stayed in the same industry, I didn’t get to just go along with what I knew early on. In fact, not a year has gone by where I didn’t have to learn new stuff. Lots of new stuff. Constantly. (Here I am pushing 45 years later; still having to learn new stuff to keep going) Don’t learn? Out of work in short order.
In fact, it’s likely that my personal experience colors my view of the world. It leaves me feeling sympathy for those who struggle to learn. But not much for those who just don’t want to be bothered.
I left school and stayed in the same industry for 35 years, haven’t you(rhetorical question not asking for personal info).
While I stayed in the same industry, I didn’t get to just go along with what I knew early on. In fact, not a year has gone by where I didn’t have to learn new stuff. Lots of new stuff. Constantly. (Here I am pushing 45 years later; still having to learn new stuff to keep going) Don’t learn? Out of work in short order.
In fact, it’s likely that my personal experience colors my view of the world. It leaves me feeling sympathy for those who struggle to learn. But not much for those who just don’t want to be bothered.
I left school and stayed in the same industry for 35 years, haven’t you(rhetorical question not asking for personal info).
While I stayed in the same industry, I didn’t get to just go along with what I knew early on. In fact, not a year has gone by where I didn’t have to learn new stuff. Lots of new stuff. Constantly. (Here I am pushing 45 years later; still having to learn new stuff to keep going) Don’t learn? Out of work in short order.
In fact, it’s likely that my personal experience colors my view of the world. It leaves me feeling sympathy for those who struggle to learn. But not much for those who just don’t want to be bothered.
Too much capital, not enough income:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/new-study-says-rising-inequality-killing-economy
Too much capital, not enough income:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/new-study-says-rising-inequality-killing-economy
Too much capital, not enough income:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/new-study-says-rising-inequality-killing-economy
i wish i could stop learning new stuff.
programming these days is a never-ending cycle of learning new toolkits and frameworks and paradigms which will be discarded in 18 months for a brand new set of toolkits and frameworks and paradigms. and nothing ever ships because all of these toolkits and frameworks and paradigms are piles of crap.
i wish i could stop learning new stuff.
programming these days is a never-ending cycle of learning new toolkits and frameworks and paradigms which will be discarded in 18 months for a brand new set of toolkits and frameworks and paradigms. and nothing ever ships because all of these toolkits and frameworks and paradigms are piles of crap.
i wish i could stop learning new stuff.
programming these days is a never-ending cycle of learning new toolkits and frameworks and paradigms which will be discarded in 18 months for a brand new set of toolkits and frameworks and paradigms. and nothing ever ships because all of these toolkits and frameworks and paradigms are piles of crap.
nothing ever ships because all of these toolkits and frameworks and paradigms are piles of crap
That’s because the people who supply them figured out that they could sell “the next new thing!” to executives who have no clue. As long as nobody technical is involved in the decision to buy them, and mandate their use, sales is a breeze. Way, way too often.
nothing ever ships because all of these toolkits and frameworks and paradigms are piles of crap
That’s because the people who supply them figured out that they could sell “the next new thing!” to executives who have no clue. As long as nobody technical is involved in the decision to buy them, and mandate their use, sales is a breeze. Way, way too often.
nothing ever ships because all of these toolkits and frameworks and paradigms are piles of crap
That’s because the people who supply them figured out that they could sell “the next new thing!” to executives who have no clue. As long as nobody technical is involved in the decision to buy them, and mandate their use, sales is a breeze. Way, way too often.
I’ve been learning all my career, tech is like that. But my skills prepare me to learn the next thing.
Manufacturing workers had to learn things too, that’s most any job.
I’ve been learning all my career, tech is like that. But my skills prepare me to learn the next thing.
Manufacturing workers had to learn things too, that’s most any job.
I’ve been learning all my career, tech is like that. But my skills prepare me to learn the next thing.
Manufacturing workers had to learn things too, that’s most any job.
http://m.state.gov/md262560.htm
Scroll down a bit for a new Orwellism. ” Inefficiencies in the targeting process.” This was to explain why Saudi bombing of hospitals in Yemen is a peccadillo compared to Russian bombing of hospitals in Aleppo.
http://m.state.gov/md262560.htm
Scroll down a bit for a new Orwellism. ” Inefficiencies in the targeting process.” This was to explain why Saudi bombing of hospitals in Yemen is a peccadillo compared to Russian bombing of hospitals in Aleppo.
http://m.state.gov/md262560.htm
Scroll down a bit for a new Orwellism. ” Inefficiencies in the targeting process.” This was to explain why Saudi bombing of hospitals in Yemen is a peccadillo compared to Russian bombing of hospitals in Aleppo.
In my line of work, learning new stuff isn’t quite the same as having to learn the latest fad language or toolkit.
Currently I’m learning opto-mechanical system modeling, calibration and analysis.
Probably most people are bored with that kind of thing, or go all defocused on hearing about it. Fortunately for me, I am one of the few people fascinated by it. I wouldn’t say I’m particularly good at it, but that’s comparing myself to the guy I’m learning it from.
Who got a bachelor’s degree in math in 2 years. Then got a master’s in physics, and has a dozen and a half patents to his name.
I’m luckier than I deserve to be.
In my line of work, learning new stuff isn’t quite the same as having to learn the latest fad language or toolkit.
Currently I’m learning opto-mechanical system modeling, calibration and analysis.
Probably most people are bored with that kind of thing, or go all defocused on hearing about it. Fortunately for me, I am one of the few people fascinated by it. I wouldn’t say I’m particularly good at it, but that’s comparing myself to the guy I’m learning it from.
Who got a bachelor’s degree in math in 2 years. Then got a master’s in physics, and has a dozen and a half patents to his name.
I’m luckier than I deserve to be.
In my line of work, learning new stuff isn’t quite the same as having to learn the latest fad language or toolkit.
Currently I’m learning opto-mechanical system modeling, calibration and analysis.
Probably most people are bored with that kind of thing, or go all defocused on hearing about it. Fortunately for me, I am one of the few people fascinated by it. I wouldn’t say I’m particularly good at it, but that’s comparing myself to the guy I’m learning it from.
Who got a bachelor’s degree in math in 2 years. Then got a master’s in physics, and has a dozen and a half patents to his name.
I’m luckier than I deserve to be.
“I’m luckier than I deserve to be.”
I expect that is not true. Poor-talking yourself will get you nowhere. 😉
“I’m luckier than I deserve to be.”
I expect that is not true. Poor-talking yourself will get you nowhere. 😉
“I’m luckier than I deserve to be.”
I expect that is not true. Poor-talking yourself will get you nowhere. 😉
But my skills prepare me to learn the next thing.
it’s not that i can’t learn the new stuff. it’s that, as wj points out, so much of the new stuff just seems like trendy nonsense that someone in the corner office got excited about. so, every 18 months, i have to waste two of them getting up to speed on whatever it is that sounded good to whoever makes the decisions.
i learn it, because i need the paycheck. and i’m adding lots of buzzwords to my resume. but the constant tech churn seems counterproductive when it comes to delivering product. IMO.
But my skills prepare me to learn the next thing.
it’s not that i can’t learn the new stuff. it’s that, as wj points out, so much of the new stuff just seems like trendy nonsense that someone in the corner office got excited about. so, every 18 months, i have to waste two of them getting up to speed on whatever it is that sounded good to whoever makes the decisions.
i learn it, because i need the paycheck. and i’m adding lots of buzzwords to my resume. but the constant tech churn seems counterproductive when it comes to delivering product. IMO.
But my skills prepare me to learn the next thing.
it’s not that i can’t learn the new stuff. it’s that, as wj points out, so much of the new stuff just seems like trendy nonsense that someone in the corner office got excited about. so, every 18 months, i have to waste two of them getting up to speed on whatever it is that sounded good to whoever makes the decisions.
i learn it, because i need the paycheck. and i’m adding lots of buzzwords to my resume. but the constant tech churn seems counterproductive when it comes to delivering product. IMO.
“I think the amount of accusation exceeds the amount of criminal evidence.”
I think you’re right.
We live in a nation, and at a time, when the highest court in the land has explicitly stated that, short of an explicit quid pro quo of money for policy or legislative outcome, cash payments to parties and individuals are fair game.
It’s speech.
Clinton did not make those rules, and she is miles and miles away from being the worst example of how that has perverted the political process.
It is, as they say, to laugh.
Pay for access *is how American governance functions*. As a matter of settled law, *it is a form of speech*. Constitutionally protected speech. An inalienable right.
Where the hell do you think you live, the UK?
“Well, but people actually do need to learn new things”
Yeah, but it would be freaking great if ‘new things’ paid more than $10
“I think the amount of accusation exceeds the amount of criminal evidence.”
I think you’re right.
We live in a nation, and at a time, when the highest court in the land has explicitly stated that, short of an explicit quid pro quo of money for policy or legislative outcome, cash payments to parties and individuals are fair game.
It’s speech.
Clinton did not make those rules, and she is miles and miles away from being the worst example of how that has perverted the political process.
It is, as they say, to laugh.
Pay for access *is how American governance functions*. As a matter of settled law, *it is a form of speech*. Constitutionally protected speech. An inalienable right.
Where the hell do you think you live, the UK?
“Well, but people actually do need to learn new things”
Yeah, but it would be freaking great if ‘new things’ paid more than $10
“I think the amount of accusation exceeds the amount of criminal evidence.”
I think you’re right.
We live in a nation, and at a time, when the highest court in the land has explicitly stated that, short of an explicit quid pro quo of money for policy or legislative outcome, cash payments to parties and individuals are fair game.
It’s speech.
Clinton did not make those rules, and she is miles and miles away from being the worst example of how that has perverted the political process.
It is, as they say, to laugh.
Pay for access *is how American governance functions*. As a matter of settled law, *it is a form of speech*. Constitutionally protected speech. An inalienable right.
Where the hell do you think you live, the UK?
“Well, but people actually do need to learn new things”
Yeah, but it would be freaking great if ‘new things’ paid more than $10
“Yeah, but it would be freaking great if ‘new things’ paid more than $10”
FTW
“Yeah, but it would be freaking great if ‘new things’ paid more than $10”
FTW
“Yeah, but it would be freaking great if ‘new things’ paid more than $10”
FTW
the constant tech churn seems counterproductive when it comes to delivering product.
The sad part is that some of the new stuff is really great. And a real productivity boost.
But whether you get that, or something useless, seems to be largely a matter of luck. (Or maybe unconscious brilliance back when you were seeking employment.)
the constant tech churn seems counterproductive when it comes to delivering product.
The sad part is that some of the new stuff is really great. And a real productivity boost.
But whether you get that, or something useless, seems to be largely a matter of luck. (Or maybe unconscious brilliance back when you were seeking employment.)
the constant tech churn seems counterproductive when it comes to delivering product.
The sad part is that some of the new stuff is really great. And a real productivity boost.
But whether you get that, or something useless, seems to be largely a matter of luck. (Or maybe unconscious brilliance back when you were seeking employment.)
I think the difference is between having to learn new fundamentals or to just having to update. The latter is a given and usually not a major problem.
I studied chemistry and believe that an early 20th century chemist could with tolerable effort adapt to modern standards. His main problem would likely be getting accustomed to computers. Where he would struggle would be with modern biochemistry because that is somethimg fundamentally new and requires not just an update on facts but a different mindset.
As far as programming goes, I got lost when object oriented programming came around. I was unable to wrap my mind around that and got stuck on the classical Pascal/BASIC level.
I think the difference is between having to learn new fundamentals or to just having to update. The latter is a given and usually not a major problem.
I studied chemistry and believe that an early 20th century chemist could with tolerable effort adapt to modern standards. His main problem would likely be getting accustomed to computers. Where he would struggle would be with modern biochemistry because that is somethimg fundamentally new and requires not just an update on facts but a different mindset.
As far as programming goes, I got lost when object oriented programming came around. I was unable to wrap my mind around that and got stuck on the classical Pascal/BASIC level.
I think the difference is between having to learn new fundamentals or to just having to update. The latter is a given and usually not a major problem.
I studied chemistry and believe that an early 20th century chemist could with tolerable effort adapt to modern standards. His main problem would likely be getting accustomed to computers. Where he would struggle would be with modern biochemistry because that is somethimg fundamentally new and requires not just an update on facts but a different mindset.
As far as programming goes, I got lost when object oriented programming came around. I was unable to wrap my mind around that and got stuck on the classical Pascal/BASIC level.
Cleek, you are absolutely on point. I’m a web developer by trade and the sheer volume of frameworks and tools really seems to have bloomed in the last couple of years. I worked in PHP and jQuery (such as it was) from about 2004 to about 2012 without too many hiccups – though the latter years were starting to hit the proliferation of PHP frameworks that have now consolidated back down a bit into a few key players.
We’re now going through the same nonsense with Javascript — in five years time it will be fine because the industry will have settled on a few key tools, but for now it’s hell.
Of course, in five years probably we’ll have discarded the web as we know it for some kind of enhanced app ecosystem, and we’ll all have to learn everything anew.
Cleek, you are absolutely on point. I’m a web developer by trade and the sheer volume of frameworks and tools really seems to have bloomed in the last couple of years. I worked in PHP and jQuery (such as it was) from about 2004 to about 2012 without too many hiccups – though the latter years were starting to hit the proliferation of PHP frameworks that have now consolidated back down a bit into a few key players.
We’re now going through the same nonsense with Javascript — in five years time it will be fine because the industry will have settled on a few key tools, but for now it’s hell.
Of course, in five years probably we’ll have discarded the web as we know it for some kind of enhanced app ecosystem, and we’ll all have to learn everything anew.
Cleek, you are absolutely on point. I’m a web developer by trade and the sheer volume of frameworks and tools really seems to have bloomed in the last couple of years. I worked in PHP and jQuery (such as it was) from about 2004 to about 2012 without too many hiccups – though the latter years were starting to hit the proliferation of PHP frameworks that have now consolidated back down a bit into a few key players.
We’re now going through the same nonsense with Javascript — in five years time it will be fine because the industry will have settled on a few key tools, but for now it’s hell.
Of course, in five years probably we’ll have discarded the web as we know it for some kind of enhanced app ecosystem, and we’ll all have to learn everything anew.
Yeah, but it would be freaking great if ‘new things’ paid more than $10
I agree, but that’s the demand we should be making.
Yeah, but it would be freaking great if ‘new things’ paid more than $10
I agree, but that’s the demand we should be making.
Yeah, but it would be freaking great if ‘new things’ paid more than $10
I agree, but that’s the demand we should be making.
Indict every Republican in Congress for Treason and then, Trump first, by machete, let the killing begin:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/30/gop-blocks-probes-into-trump-russia-ties.html?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon
Where the fuck is J. Edgar Hoover to wire tap this shit when we need him? What, is he still busy assassinating Martin Luther King in the afterlife on behalf of conservative America so they get their choice of prime real estate after they are dead too.
Then start in with less restrained violence on the down market vermin Republicans:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pennsylvania-mayor-charles-wasko-racist-facebook-posts
Gary Johnson may be in the clear because he’s never heard of Vlad Putin, though he wondered recently if that Vlad dude might have been the guy who scored him some Maui Wowi back in the day.
America: full of fucking shit to the gills.
Indict every Republican in Congress for Treason and then, Trump first, by machete, let the killing begin:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/30/gop-blocks-probes-into-trump-russia-ties.html?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon
Where the fuck is J. Edgar Hoover to wire tap this shit when we need him? What, is he still busy assassinating Martin Luther King in the afterlife on behalf of conservative America so they get their choice of prime real estate after they are dead too.
Then start in with less restrained violence on the down market vermin Republicans:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pennsylvania-mayor-charles-wasko-racist-facebook-posts
Gary Johnson may be in the clear because he’s never heard of Vlad Putin, though he wondered recently if that Vlad dude might have been the guy who scored him some Maui Wowi back in the day.
America: full of fucking shit to the gills.
Indict every Republican in Congress for Treason and then, Trump first, by machete, let the killing begin:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/30/gop-blocks-probes-into-trump-russia-ties.html?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon
Where the fuck is J. Edgar Hoover to wire tap this shit when we need him? What, is he still busy assassinating Martin Luther King in the afterlife on behalf of conservative America so they get their choice of prime real estate after they are dead too.
Then start in with less restrained violence on the down market vermin Republicans:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pennsylvania-mayor-charles-wasko-racist-facebook-posts
Gary Johnson may be in the clear because he’s never heard of Vlad Putin, though he wondered recently if that Vlad dude might have been the guy who scored him some Maui Wowi back in the day.
America: full of fucking shit to the gills.
Count, I’ve got a question: Why nothing about how the Republicans in Congress (OK, the Democrats voted for it too) overrode Obama’s veto of the bill on 9/11 survivors suing Saudi Arabia. And within 24 hours are talking about a do-over — the need to pass another bill to “fix” all the things in the bill which would harm the country, and put our military folks overseas at risk.
Seems like it would be a natural for you….
Count, I’ve got a question: Why nothing about how the Republicans in Congress (OK, the Democrats voted for it too) overrode Obama’s veto of the bill on 9/11 survivors suing Saudi Arabia. And within 24 hours are talking about a do-over — the need to pass another bill to “fix” all the things in the bill which would harm the country, and put our military folks overseas at risk.
Seems like it would be a natural for you….
Count, I’ve got a question: Why nothing about how the Republicans in Congress (OK, the Democrats voted for it too) overrode Obama’s veto of the bill on 9/11 survivors suing Saudi Arabia. And within 24 hours are talking about a do-over — the need to pass another bill to “fix” all the things in the bill which would harm the country, and put our military folks overseas at risk.
Seems like it would be a natural for you….
My dance card is full at the moment:
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=24804#comments
I’ll get to it. What, I have to do everything?
I figured I’d let Marty poke Obama in the eye first over the 9/11 survivors bill (yes, bipartisan both in its passage and the veto override in a mutual attempt by Congressional politicians to bribe their voters and then blame Obama for making them do it, because THAT guy is one super $igger. The things he makes people do.)
My dance card is full at the moment:
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=24804#comments
I’ll get to it. What, I have to do everything?
I figured I’d let Marty poke Obama in the eye first over the 9/11 survivors bill (yes, bipartisan both in its passage and the veto override in a mutual attempt by Congressional politicians to bribe their voters and then blame Obama for making them do it, because THAT guy is one super $igger. The things he makes people do.)
My dance card is full at the moment:
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=24804#comments
I’ll get to it. What, I have to do everything?
I figured I’d let Marty poke Obama in the eye first over the 9/11 survivors bill (yes, bipartisan both in its passage and the veto override in a mutual attempt by Congressional politicians to bribe their voters and then blame Obama for making them do it, because THAT guy is one super $igger. The things he makes people do.)
“I figured I’d let Marty poke Obama in the eye first over the 9/11 survivors bil”
I would, but I agree with him so I would have to poke myself in the eye. Not that I haven’t been accused of that before.
“I figured I’d let Marty poke Obama in the eye first over the 9/11 survivors bil”
I would, but I agree with him so I would have to poke myself in the eye. Not that I haven’t been accused of that before.
“I figured I’d let Marty poke Obama in the eye first over the 9/11 survivors bil”
I would, but I agree with him so I would have to poke myself in the eye. Not that I haven’t been accused of that before.
It does say something that, on one of the extremely rare occasions where the Congress manages to agree on something more substantive than naming a post office, it’s to do something so stupid that even they can quickly figure out, in retrospect, it was a bad idea.
It does say something that, on one of the extremely rare occasions where the Congress manages to agree on something more substantive than naming a post office, it’s to do something so stupid that even they can quickly figure out, in retrospect, it was a bad idea.
It does say something that, on one of the extremely rare occasions where the Congress manages to agree on something more substantive than naming a post office, it’s to do something so stupid that even they can quickly figure out, in retrospect, it was a bad idea.
i swear i posted a comment about that 9/11 bill here. but i can’t find it now.
maybe it got swallowed by the moderation monster that eats all comments of mine if there’s a URL in the field just above the Post / Preview buttons. and FF, for some reason, ALWAYS puts a URL in there. and i always have to delete it in order to get comments to show up here.
i swear i posted a comment about that 9/11 bill here. but i can’t find it now.
maybe it got swallowed by the moderation monster that eats all comments of mine if there’s a URL in the field just above the Post / Preview buttons. and FF, for some reason, ALWAYS puts a URL in there. and i always have to delete it in order to get comments to show up here.
i swear i posted a comment about that 9/11 bill here. but i can’t find it now.
maybe it got swallowed by the moderation monster that eats all comments of mine if there’s a URL in the field just above the Post / Preview buttons. and FF, for some reason, ALWAYS puts a URL in there. and i always have to delete it in order to get comments to show up here.
ah-ha!
it was hiding in the blogs.com / typepadurl cookie!
crunch.
ah-ha!
it was hiding in the blogs.com / typepadurl cookie!
crunch.
ah-ha!
it was hiding in the blogs.com / typepadurl cookie!
crunch.
I don’t think the concern about the 9/11 bill is primarily concern about the rights of Lynndie England. It’s the precedent. If US citizens can sue the Saudi government for ties to terrorism, then some person somewhere mught claim a family member was killed or hurt by either US forces or weapons supplied by the US to other governments and might want to sue the US government. (Those crazy furriners and their wild imaginations.). I doubt they’d go after the Lynndie Englands if they can go after Uncle Sam and the Treasury. And we look silly saying that US citizens have a right to go after the Saudis but our victims can expect nothing from us.
It’s not to be expected that DC types would be open about that. Sounds better to make it solely about the troops.
Plus Americans aren’t the only people hurt by the Saudis. Only the other day I was reading about Yemen.
I don’t think the concern about the 9/11 bill is primarily concern about the rights of Lynndie England. It’s the precedent. If US citizens can sue the Saudi government for ties to terrorism, then some person somewhere mught claim a family member was killed or hurt by either US forces or weapons supplied by the US to other governments and might want to sue the US government. (Those crazy furriners and their wild imaginations.). I doubt they’d go after the Lynndie Englands if they can go after Uncle Sam and the Treasury. And we look silly saying that US citizens have a right to go after the Saudis but our victims can expect nothing from us.
It’s not to be expected that DC types would be open about that. Sounds better to make it solely about the troops.
Plus Americans aren’t the only people hurt by the Saudis. Only the other day I was reading about Yemen.
I don’t think the concern about the 9/11 bill is primarily concern about the rights of Lynndie England. It’s the precedent. If US citizens can sue the Saudi government for ties to terrorism, then some person somewhere mught claim a family member was killed or hurt by either US forces or weapons supplied by the US to other governments and might want to sue the US government. (Those crazy furriners and their wild imaginations.). I doubt they’d go after the Lynndie Englands if they can go after Uncle Sam and the Treasury. And we look silly saying that US citizens have a right to go after the Saudis but our victims can expect nothing from us.
It’s not to be expected that DC types would be open about that. Sounds better to make it solely about the troops.
Plus Americans aren’t the only people hurt by the Saudis. Only the other day I was reading about Yemen.
This BBC piece is more straightforward–
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37504158
Note the quote from the 9/11 family spokesperson. If we’re not funding terrorist groups and aren’t killing people, we have nothing to worry about. Well, all righty then.
This BBC piece is more straightforward–
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37504158
Note the quote from the 9/11 family spokesperson. If we’re not funding terrorist groups and aren’t killing people, we have nothing to worry about. Well, all righty then.
This BBC piece is more straightforward–
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37504158
Note the quote from the 9/11 family spokesperson. If we’re not funding terrorist groups and aren’t killing people, we have nothing to worry about. Well, all righty then.
If we’re not funding terrorist groups and aren’t killing people, we have nothing to worry about. Well, all righty then.
Hmmm.
“The bill itself had been kicking around for several years, pushed by two powerful senators — John Cornyn of Texas, the chamber’s second-ranking Republican, and Chuck Schumer of New York, anointed earlier this year as the next Democratic leader.”
Two of your favorite anti-war Senators, Donald, is that right?
If we’re not funding terrorist groups and aren’t killing people, we have nothing to worry about. Well, all righty then.
Hmmm.
“The bill itself had been kicking around for several years, pushed by two powerful senators — John Cornyn of Texas, the chamber’s second-ranking Republican, and Chuck Schumer of New York, anointed earlier this year as the next Democratic leader.”
Two of your favorite anti-war Senators, Donald, is that right?
If we’re not funding terrorist groups and aren’t killing people, we have nothing to worry about. Well, all righty then.
Hmmm.
“The bill itself had been kicking around for several years, pushed by two powerful senators — John Cornyn of Texas, the chamber’s second-ranking Republican, and Chuck Schumer of New York, anointed earlier this year as the next Democratic leader.”
Two of your favorite anti-war Senators, Donald, is that right?
I would, but I agree with him so I would have to poke myself in the eye. Not that I haven’t been accused of that before.
you AGREE with that dictator, Obama? Stop the presses! And who accused you of poking yourself in the eye? That arise wrt some old insurance claim?
Have a good weekend.
I would, but I agree with him so I would have to poke myself in the eye. Not that I haven’t been accused of that before.
you AGREE with that dictator, Obama? Stop the presses! And who accused you of poking yourself in the eye? That arise wrt some old insurance claim?
Have a good weekend.
I would, but I agree with him so I would have to poke myself in the eye. Not that I haven’t been accused of that before.
you AGREE with that dictator, Obama? Stop the presses! And who accused you of poking yourself in the eye? That arise wrt some old insurance claim?
Have a good weekend.
Your sarcasm misfires as usual sapient. Schumer supported the 9/11 bill and supported the Saudis on Yemen. So no, he is not driven by principle. Some or most of the supporters felt trapped into supporting the 9/11 bill because they didn’t want to be seen supporting the Saudis rather than families of 9/11 victims. The opponents fear this might open a hornet’s nest of foreign complaints against us for things we have done, but rather than say that they couch it in terms of what it might mean to the troops. That was my point. How you think Schumer’s support means anything to me is a mystery only you can solve. Not a very interesting mystery, admittedly.
Your sarcasm misfires as usual sapient. Schumer supported the 9/11 bill and supported the Saudis on Yemen. So no, he is not driven by principle. Some or most of the supporters felt trapped into supporting the 9/11 bill because they didn’t want to be seen supporting the Saudis rather than families of 9/11 victims. The opponents fear this might open a hornet’s nest of foreign complaints against us for things we have done, but rather than say that they couch it in terms of what it might mean to the troops. That was my point. How you think Schumer’s support means anything to me is a mystery only you can solve. Not a very interesting mystery, admittedly.
Your sarcasm misfires as usual sapient. Schumer supported the 9/11 bill and supported the Saudis on Yemen. So no, he is not driven by principle. Some or most of the supporters felt trapped into supporting the 9/11 bill because they didn’t want to be seen supporting the Saudis rather than families of 9/11 victims. The opponents fear this might open a hornet’s nest of foreign complaints against us for things we have done, but rather than say that they couch it in terms of what it might mean to the troops. That was my point. How you think Schumer’s support means anything to me is a mystery only you can solve. Not a very interesting mystery, admittedly.
The opponents fear this might open a hornet’s nest of foreign complaints against us for things we have done
I disagree with the notion underlying this that somehow, Obama’s veto proves a conspiracy. A legitimate concern is that it encourages Peter Thiel like behavior (the guy who sponsored Hulk Hogan’s legal efforts), allowing the rich to back fishing expeditions in order to try to make something embarrassing rise up.
Here’s an article that states that more clearly that may or may not articulate your position
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/28/whats-behind-the-senates-override-obamas-veto-on-saudi-911-lawsuit-bill/
KEY POINT: Why is Obama protecting Saudi Arabia? One of Obama’s top financial partners in the dirty war on Syria is Saudi Arabia, who has also paid for “off-the-books” CIA operations there. Unlike Saudi and 9/11, by definition, this is state-sponsored terrorism.
I’m not claiming that it is all nobility on Obama’s part, but dealing with foreign governments is a black box. While Obama is ‘protecting’ Saudi Arabia, how one deals with individual problematic countries is the ultimate challenge in the modern world and when we Looking at how Gowdy has been able to draw out the Benghazi questioning, when you start finding a way to bypass diplomatic channels to take up issues, you provide that possibility for anyone to take up anything, which then encourages a greater amount of secrecy. While the reason given is that foreign courts might do the same thing, they could do that before, the only thing that made it unlikely was that there was an air of MAD to it. However, this can’t be said baldly because it would be saying that the American legal system is wrong and those furriner systems are in the right. Given the fact that we are flood to our back teeth with hypocrisy, giving another outlet to let it reign is not really the best idea.
As soon as you start adopting runarounds of the legal system via the legislature, you are undermining that legal system. It is doubtful, sad to say, that Yemenis are going to sue the US for drone strikes. What is not doubtful is the ability for someone with deep pockets to support constant nuisance suits here in the US to try and undermine one side. I realize that there is a realpolitik element to this argument that is very distasteful. However, I think it is baked into the system, and treating it as a conspiracy doesn’t really help much.
The opponents fear this might open a hornet’s nest of foreign complaints against us for things we have done
I disagree with the notion underlying this that somehow, Obama’s veto proves a conspiracy. A legitimate concern is that it encourages Peter Thiel like behavior (the guy who sponsored Hulk Hogan’s legal efforts), allowing the rich to back fishing expeditions in order to try to make something embarrassing rise up.
Here’s an article that states that more clearly that may or may not articulate your position
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/28/whats-behind-the-senates-override-obamas-veto-on-saudi-911-lawsuit-bill/
KEY POINT: Why is Obama protecting Saudi Arabia? One of Obama’s top financial partners in the dirty war on Syria is Saudi Arabia, who has also paid for “off-the-books” CIA operations there. Unlike Saudi and 9/11, by definition, this is state-sponsored terrorism.
I’m not claiming that it is all nobility on Obama’s part, but dealing with foreign governments is a black box. While Obama is ‘protecting’ Saudi Arabia, how one deals with individual problematic countries is the ultimate challenge in the modern world and when we Looking at how Gowdy has been able to draw out the Benghazi questioning, when you start finding a way to bypass diplomatic channels to take up issues, you provide that possibility for anyone to take up anything, which then encourages a greater amount of secrecy. While the reason given is that foreign courts might do the same thing, they could do that before, the only thing that made it unlikely was that there was an air of MAD to it. However, this can’t be said baldly because it would be saying that the American legal system is wrong and those furriner systems are in the right. Given the fact that we are flood to our back teeth with hypocrisy, giving another outlet to let it reign is not really the best idea.
As soon as you start adopting runarounds of the legal system via the legislature, you are undermining that legal system. It is doubtful, sad to say, that Yemenis are going to sue the US for drone strikes. What is not doubtful is the ability for someone with deep pockets to support constant nuisance suits here in the US to try and undermine one side. I realize that there is a realpolitik element to this argument that is very distasteful. However, I think it is baked into the system, and treating it as a conspiracy doesn’t really help much.
The opponents fear this might open a hornet’s nest of foreign complaints against us for things we have done
I disagree with the notion underlying this that somehow, Obama’s veto proves a conspiracy. A legitimate concern is that it encourages Peter Thiel like behavior (the guy who sponsored Hulk Hogan’s legal efforts), allowing the rich to back fishing expeditions in order to try to make something embarrassing rise up.
Here’s an article that states that more clearly that may or may not articulate your position
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/28/whats-behind-the-senates-override-obamas-veto-on-saudi-911-lawsuit-bill/
KEY POINT: Why is Obama protecting Saudi Arabia? One of Obama’s top financial partners in the dirty war on Syria is Saudi Arabia, who has also paid for “off-the-books” CIA operations there. Unlike Saudi and 9/11, by definition, this is state-sponsored terrorism.
I’m not claiming that it is all nobility on Obama’s part, but dealing with foreign governments is a black box. While Obama is ‘protecting’ Saudi Arabia, how one deals with individual problematic countries is the ultimate challenge in the modern world and when we Looking at how Gowdy has been able to draw out the Benghazi questioning, when you start finding a way to bypass diplomatic channels to take up issues, you provide that possibility for anyone to take up anything, which then encourages a greater amount of secrecy. While the reason given is that foreign courts might do the same thing, they could do that before, the only thing that made it unlikely was that there was an air of MAD to it. However, this can’t be said baldly because it would be saying that the American legal system is wrong and those furriner systems are in the right. Given the fact that we are flood to our back teeth with hypocrisy, giving another outlet to let it reign is not really the best idea.
As soon as you start adopting runarounds of the legal system via the legislature, you are undermining that legal system. It is doubtful, sad to say, that Yemenis are going to sue the US for drone strikes. What is not doubtful is the ability for someone with deep pockets to support constant nuisance suits here in the US to try and undermine one side. I realize that there is a realpolitik element to this argument that is very distasteful. However, I think it is baked into the system, and treating it as a conspiracy doesn’t really help much.
Trump first, by machete, let the killing begin:
can’t we just pants him and send him back to Queens?
cream pies won’t get it done? hose him down with a seltzer siphon while intoning ‘slowly I turned…’?
perhaps we could just dose him with horse tranquilizer and smooth him the hell out.
all this talk about killing just harshes my mellow.
Trump first, by machete, let the killing begin:
can’t we just pants him and send him back to Queens?
cream pies won’t get it done? hose him down with a seltzer siphon while intoning ‘slowly I turned…’?
perhaps we could just dose him with horse tranquilizer and smooth him the hell out.
all this talk about killing just harshes my mellow.
Trump first, by machete, let the killing begin:
can’t we just pants him and send him back to Queens?
cream pies won’t get it done? hose him down with a seltzer siphon while intoning ‘slowly I turned…’?
perhaps we could just dose him with horse tranquilizer and smooth him the hell out.
all this talk about killing just harshes my mellow.
There’s no conspiracy– it’s right out in the open and it transcends Obama. So long as the US either invades countries, commits war crimes, or supports others who do, there is no up side from the government’s pov of allowing private citizens to sue us for damage. This 9/11 bill is poorly thought out in that the congress allows Americans to sue the Saudis and that sets a precedent. I don’t necessarily support the bill– I am just commenting on the hypocrisy of the debate on both sides.
So rather than say that we have too many skeletons in our closet to allow this kind of thing, our government says it’s all about protecting the troops. Sure, that’s part of it, but the other bigger part is that we don’t want to be held accountable by anyone for anything.
Some people tried to sue the Palestinian Authority recently because Amercans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. The US was opposed to this too. Makes foreign policy hard to conduct. True. Of course nobody adds that the Palestinians might want to sue us for the weapons we’ve supplied that have killed their children.
As for nuisance lawsuits, I would bet a fair number of lawyers would be willing to to take cases that are all too real, given the opportunity. Back in the 90’s when there was debate about the US putting itself under the authority of the ICC, we had the same unreal debate. Opponents worried that there would be nuisance lawsuits against our troops. Proponents said it was a false concern, because the ICC only came in when a country didn’t have a functioning judicial system capable of holding its own war criminals to account. Both sides spoke as though it was unimaginable that there could be legitimate reasons for having Americans tried in the ICC. I often wonder at the psychology of DC types. Do they simply absorb a certain way of thinking, because to step outside the local Overton Window is to be seen as a lunatic? Probably so. Our judicial system did a wonderful job bringing those responsible for the torture policy to account. The people saying this were thinking of low level types like Calley ( who got out early).
There’s no conspiracy– it’s right out in the open and it transcends Obama. So long as the US either invades countries, commits war crimes, or supports others who do, there is no up side from the government’s pov of allowing private citizens to sue us for damage. This 9/11 bill is poorly thought out in that the congress allows Americans to sue the Saudis and that sets a precedent. I don’t necessarily support the bill– I am just commenting on the hypocrisy of the debate on both sides.
So rather than say that we have too many skeletons in our closet to allow this kind of thing, our government says it’s all about protecting the troops. Sure, that’s part of it, but the other bigger part is that we don’t want to be held accountable by anyone for anything.
Some people tried to sue the Palestinian Authority recently because Amercans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. The US was opposed to this too. Makes foreign policy hard to conduct. True. Of course nobody adds that the Palestinians might want to sue us for the weapons we’ve supplied that have killed their children.
As for nuisance lawsuits, I would bet a fair number of lawyers would be willing to to take cases that are all too real, given the opportunity. Back in the 90’s when there was debate about the US putting itself under the authority of the ICC, we had the same unreal debate. Opponents worried that there would be nuisance lawsuits against our troops. Proponents said it was a false concern, because the ICC only came in when a country didn’t have a functioning judicial system capable of holding its own war criminals to account. Both sides spoke as though it was unimaginable that there could be legitimate reasons for having Americans tried in the ICC. I often wonder at the psychology of DC types. Do they simply absorb a certain way of thinking, because to step outside the local Overton Window is to be seen as a lunatic? Probably so. Our judicial system did a wonderful job bringing those responsible for the torture policy to account. The people saying this were thinking of low level types like Calley ( who got out early).
There’s no conspiracy– it’s right out in the open and it transcends Obama. So long as the US either invades countries, commits war crimes, or supports others who do, there is no up side from the government’s pov of allowing private citizens to sue us for damage. This 9/11 bill is poorly thought out in that the congress allows Americans to sue the Saudis and that sets a precedent. I don’t necessarily support the bill– I am just commenting on the hypocrisy of the debate on both sides.
So rather than say that we have too many skeletons in our closet to allow this kind of thing, our government says it’s all about protecting the troops. Sure, that’s part of it, but the other bigger part is that we don’t want to be held accountable by anyone for anything.
Some people tried to sue the Palestinian Authority recently because Amercans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. The US was opposed to this too. Makes foreign policy hard to conduct. True. Of course nobody adds that the Palestinians might want to sue us for the weapons we’ve supplied that have killed their children.
As for nuisance lawsuits, I would bet a fair number of lawyers would be willing to to take cases that are all too real, given the opportunity. Back in the 90’s when there was debate about the US putting itself under the authority of the ICC, we had the same unreal debate. Opponents worried that there would be nuisance lawsuits against our troops. Proponents said it was a false concern, because the ICC only came in when a country didn’t have a functioning judicial system capable of holding its own war criminals to account. Both sides spoke as though it was unimaginable that there could be legitimate reasons for having Americans tried in the ICC. I often wonder at the psychology of DC types. Do they simply absorb a certain way of thinking, because to step outside the local Overton Window is to be seen as a lunatic? Probably so. Our judicial system did a wonderful job bringing those responsible for the torture policy to account. The people saying this were thinking of low level types like Calley ( who got out early).
To be clear, in the 90’s it should have already been obvious that war crimes trials or any form of accountability were for low ranking people and not for government officials. I don’t expect government officials to admit this, but there’s no reason why the rest of us should adopt the polite conventions of Beltway society. Not that the US is different from any other government.
To be clear, in the 90’s it should have already been obvious that war crimes trials or any form of accountability were for low ranking people and not for government officials. I don’t expect government officials to admit this, but there’s no reason why the rest of us should adopt the polite conventions of Beltway society. Not that the US is different from any other government.
To be clear, in the 90’s it should have already been obvious that war crimes trials or any form of accountability were for low ranking people and not for government officials. I don’t expect government officials to admit this, but there’s no reason why the rest of us should adopt the polite conventions of Beltway society. Not that the US is different from any other government.
“As soon as you start adopting runarounds of the legal system via the legislature, you are undermining that legal system.”
For which I give you the “State Secrets Privilege”, nowhere to be found in the Constitution or Federal Law. But it’s Executive, not Legislative, so even LESS ‘transparent and accountable’.
IOW, “that ship has sailed”
Re: the ICC and torture, please note that the Convention Against Torture, which Reagan signed and was actually ratified demands that the signatories investigate and punish torture by ‘judicial, regulatory or other means“.
So 2nd Amendment solutions are definitely on the table. Please see Count for details.
“As soon as you start adopting runarounds of the legal system via the legislature, you are undermining that legal system.”
For which I give you the “State Secrets Privilege”, nowhere to be found in the Constitution or Federal Law. But it’s Executive, not Legislative, so even LESS ‘transparent and accountable’.
IOW, “that ship has sailed”
Re: the ICC and torture, please note that the Convention Against Torture, which Reagan signed and was actually ratified demands that the signatories investigate and punish torture by ‘judicial, regulatory or other means“.
So 2nd Amendment solutions are definitely on the table. Please see Count for details.
“As soon as you start adopting runarounds of the legal system via the legislature, you are undermining that legal system.”
For which I give you the “State Secrets Privilege”, nowhere to be found in the Constitution or Federal Law. But it’s Executive, not Legislative, so even LESS ‘transparent and accountable’.
IOW, “that ship has sailed”
Re: the ICC and torture, please note that the Convention Against Torture, which Reagan signed and was actually ratified demands that the signatories investigate and punish torture by ‘judicial, regulatory or other means“.
So 2nd Amendment solutions are definitely on the table. Please see Count for details.
lj, thanks for your analysis. I hadn’t even thought of the Peter Thiel scenario.
Without having read much about the bill, I assumed that Obama’s problem with it was that it leaves too much foreign policy in the hands of the courts. Indeed, having read more since the veto override, I came across this article which states pretty succinctly what I had assumed:
“Under current law, the U.S. government can exempt a country from sovereign immunity by having the State Department designate it as a state sponsor of terrorism (which it has not done for Saudi Arabia). ‘This is taking that out of our military and our intelligence and the hands of our national-security professionals and putting it into the courts,’ Obama said.’“And that’s a mistake.'”
And it is a mistake, not just because of the ramifications for our people (and actions) in other countries (whose legal systems aren’t necessarily reliable arbiters of foreign policy either), but because it complicates our diplomacy. It is a really bad idea, but obviously politically irresistible. Oh well. Hope it all works out to the good.
lj, thanks for your analysis. I hadn’t even thought of the Peter Thiel scenario.
Without having read much about the bill, I assumed that Obama’s problem with it was that it leaves too much foreign policy in the hands of the courts. Indeed, having read more since the veto override, I came across this article which states pretty succinctly what I had assumed:
“Under current law, the U.S. government can exempt a country from sovereign immunity by having the State Department designate it as a state sponsor of terrorism (which it has not done for Saudi Arabia). ‘This is taking that out of our military and our intelligence and the hands of our national-security professionals and putting it into the courts,’ Obama said.’“And that’s a mistake.'”
And it is a mistake, not just because of the ramifications for our people (and actions) in other countries (whose legal systems aren’t necessarily reliable arbiters of foreign policy either), but because it complicates our diplomacy. It is a really bad idea, but obviously politically irresistible. Oh well. Hope it all works out to the good.
lj, thanks for your analysis. I hadn’t even thought of the Peter Thiel scenario.
Without having read much about the bill, I assumed that Obama’s problem with it was that it leaves too much foreign policy in the hands of the courts. Indeed, having read more since the veto override, I came across this article which states pretty succinctly what I had assumed:
“Under current law, the U.S. government can exempt a country from sovereign immunity by having the State Department designate it as a state sponsor of terrorism (which it has not done for Saudi Arabia). ‘This is taking that out of our military and our intelligence and the hands of our national-security professionals and putting it into the courts,’ Obama said.’“And that’s a mistake.'”
And it is a mistake, not just because of the ramifications for our people (and actions) in other countries (whose legal systems aren’t necessarily reliable arbiters of foreign policy either), but because it complicates our diplomacy. It is a really bad idea, but obviously politically irresistible. Oh well. Hope it all works out to the good.
Some people tried to sue the Palestinian Authority recently because Amercans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. The US was opposed to this too. Makes foreign policy hard to conduct. True. Of course nobody adds that the Palestinians might want to sue us for the weapons we’ve supplied that have killed their children.
Please explain how you think this is hypocritical. It really IS about conducting foreign policy in the Executive branch rather than the judiciary, no matter who has the grievance. Is there something I’m missing? Your use of the word “hypocritical” is all-encompassing.
Some people tried to sue the Palestinian Authority recently because Amercans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. The US was opposed to this too. Makes foreign policy hard to conduct. True. Of course nobody adds that the Palestinians might want to sue us for the weapons we’ve supplied that have killed their children.
Please explain how you think this is hypocritical. It really IS about conducting foreign policy in the Executive branch rather than the judiciary, no matter who has the grievance. Is there something I’m missing? Your use of the word “hypocritical” is all-encompassing.
Some people tried to sue the Palestinian Authority recently because Amercans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. The US was opposed to this too. Makes foreign policy hard to conduct. True. Of course nobody adds that the Palestinians might want to sue us for the weapons we’ve supplied that have killed their children.
Please explain how you think this is hypocritical. It really IS about conducting foreign policy in the Executive branch rather than the judiciary, no matter who has the grievance. Is there something I’m missing? Your use of the word “hypocritical” is all-encompassing.
Donald, what is your view of the principle of sovereign immunity in general?
Because that is what this whole discussion is about. The Saudis and the 9/11 families is just a specific case. Or could have been, if Congress hadn’t done a piss-poor job of drafting the bill.
Donald, what is your view of the principle of sovereign immunity in general?
Because that is what this whole discussion is about. The Saudis and the 9/11 families is just a specific case. Or could have been, if Congress hadn’t done a piss-poor job of drafting the bill.
Donald, what is your view of the principle of sovereign immunity in general?
Because that is what this whole discussion is about. The Saudis and the 9/11 families is just a specific case. Or could have been, if Congress hadn’t done a piss-poor job of drafting the bill.
Wj–it’s a doctrine that allows powerful countries to kill with relative impunity. It should be modified in some way. Not, of course, by idiot politicians trying to avoid looking bad regarding 9/11 families. But there should be an international court where victims can go to have their grievances heard. It shouldn’t be a court which is seem mainly as a tool for Western governments or any other government to prosecute convenient villains. As for its ability to enforce decisions, it would have to depend on the willingness of powerful governments to abide by decisions and that won’t happen any time soon, but that’s what people should be working towards. I’m not wedded to this– if we really did police ourselves that would be great. Or there might be some other way to approach it. Right now it is obvious one can’t trust any branch of the American government to judge fairly who is or isn’t guilty of terrorism or other gross human rights violations. So it’s fine to say it shouldn’t be left to our courts, but the idea that the executive branch or Congress will be honest is equally ludicrous.
Sapient, I am not responsible for your convenient inability to understand my points. It would make foreign policy difficult if people sued the PA. It is also convenient for the US not to face the prospect of Palestinians suing the US for supplying weapons used to kill civilians. Both things are true and while there is some overlap between them they are not precisely the same point. Hypocrisy is when people profess to be outraged by terrorism and war crimes and then commit such acts or support others who do. It can also apply to other situations, but that is the meaning I am usually using around here.
I don’t expect utopia or anything fair from the Beltway crowd including much of the press, since they often seem to act like stenographers. But people shouldn’t accept the Beltway framing of the issue. It should be ridiculed at every opportunity.
Wj–it’s a doctrine that allows powerful countries to kill with relative impunity. It should be modified in some way. Not, of course, by idiot politicians trying to avoid looking bad regarding 9/11 families. But there should be an international court where victims can go to have their grievances heard. It shouldn’t be a court which is seem mainly as a tool for Western governments or any other government to prosecute convenient villains. As for its ability to enforce decisions, it would have to depend on the willingness of powerful governments to abide by decisions and that won’t happen any time soon, but that’s what people should be working towards. I’m not wedded to this– if we really did police ourselves that would be great. Or there might be some other way to approach it. Right now it is obvious one can’t trust any branch of the American government to judge fairly who is or isn’t guilty of terrorism or other gross human rights violations. So it’s fine to say it shouldn’t be left to our courts, but the idea that the executive branch or Congress will be honest is equally ludicrous.
Sapient, I am not responsible for your convenient inability to understand my points. It would make foreign policy difficult if people sued the PA. It is also convenient for the US not to face the prospect of Palestinians suing the US for supplying weapons used to kill civilians. Both things are true and while there is some overlap between them they are not precisely the same point. Hypocrisy is when people profess to be outraged by terrorism and war crimes and then commit such acts or support others who do. It can also apply to other situations, but that is the meaning I am usually using around here.
I don’t expect utopia or anything fair from the Beltway crowd including much of the press, since they often seem to act like stenographers. But people shouldn’t accept the Beltway framing of the issue. It should be ridiculed at every opportunity.
Wj–it’s a doctrine that allows powerful countries to kill with relative impunity. It should be modified in some way. Not, of course, by idiot politicians trying to avoid looking bad regarding 9/11 families. But there should be an international court where victims can go to have their grievances heard. It shouldn’t be a court which is seem mainly as a tool for Western governments or any other government to prosecute convenient villains. As for its ability to enforce decisions, it would have to depend on the willingness of powerful governments to abide by decisions and that won’t happen any time soon, but that’s what people should be working towards. I’m not wedded to this– if we really did police ourselves that would be great. Or there might be some other way to approach it. Right now it is obvious one can’t trust any branch of the American government to judge fairly who is or isn’t guilty of terrorism or other gross human rights violations. So it’s fine to say it shouldn’t be left to our courts, but the idea that the executive branch or Congress will be honest is equally ludicrous.
Sapient, I am not responsible for your convenient inability to understand my points. It would make foreign policy difficult if people sued the PA. It is also convenient for the US not to face the prospect of Palestinians suing the US for supplying weapons used to kill civilians. Both things are true and while there is some overlap between them they are not precisely the same point. Hypocrisy is when people profess to be outraged by terrorism and war crimes and then commit such acts or support others who do. It can also apply to other situations, but that is the meaning I am usually using around here.
I don’t expect utopia or anything fair from the Beltway crowd including much of the press, since they often seem to act like stenographers. But people shouldn’t accept the Beltway framing of the issue. It should be ridiculed at every opportunity.
But there should be an international court where victims can go to have their grievances heard. It shouldn’t be a court which is seem mainly as a tool for Western governments or any other government to prosecute convenient villains.
The world is building international law, Donald, and international institutions. It is an ongoing process, and will be, forever (which might not be far away, at the rate we’re going). That’s why Libya was such an important (positive) way to accomplish something, even if it didn’t result in perfection there. You love the idea of international tribunals until they don’t do what you, personally, think is the right thing.
This bill is an example of people who are trying to do the right thing, but the world is more complicated than a gesture of good will, and it may actually be the wrong thing. Multiply that by a million, and you have the complexities of foreign policy.
But there should be an international court where victims can go to have their grievances heard. It shouldn’t be a court which is seem mainly as a tool for Western governments or any other government to prosecute convenient villains.
The world is building international law, Donald, and international institutions. It is an ongoing process, and will be, forever (which might not be far away, at the rate we’re going). That’s why Libya was such an important (positive) way to accomplish something, even if it didn’t result in perfection there. You love the idea of international tribunals until they don’t do what you, personally, think is the right thing.
This bill is an example of people who are trying to do the right thing, but the world is more complicated than a gesture of good will, and it may actually be the wrong thing. Multiply that by a million, and you have the complexities of foreign policy.
But there should be an international court where victims can go to have their grievances heard. It shouldn’t be a court which is seem mainly as a tool for Western governments or any other government to prosecute convenient villains.
The world is building international law, Donald, and international institutions. It is an ongoing process, and will be, forever (which might not be far away, at the rate we’re going). That’s why Libya was such an important (positive) way to accomplish something, even if it didn’t result in perfection there. You love the idea of international tribunals until they don’t do what you, personally, think is the right thing.
This bill is an example of people who are trying to do the right thing, but the world is more complicated than a gesture of good will, and it may actually be the wrong thing. Multiply that by a million, and you have the complexities of foreign policy.
And speaking of what the international community wants, the Saudi coalition in Yemen has eight other Arab countries backing it, along with the US and other western countries who sell weapons to the Saudis. Let’s not forget that China has also entered the game in some ways.
You want the United States to withdraw from supporting anyone in these extremely troubled places. Obama had that hope too – he wanted to “pivot” to Asia, remember? But the repercussions may be more horrible than the clean feel-good aspect of washing our hands.
And speaking of what the international community wants, the Saudi coalition in Yemen has eight other Arab countries backing it, along with the US and other western countries who sell weapons to the Saudis. Let’s not forget that China has also entered the game in some ways.
You want the United States to withdraw from supporting anyone in these extremely troubled places. Obama had that hope too – he wanted to “pivot” to Asia, remember? But the repercussions may be more horrible than the clean feel-good aspect of washing our hands.
And speaking of what the international community wants, the Saudi coalition in Yemen has eight other Arab countries backing it, along with the US and other western countries who sell weapons to the Saudis. Let’s not forget that China has also entered the game in some ways.
You want the United States to withdraw from supporting anyone in these extremely troubled places. Obama had that hope too – he wanted to “pivot” to Asia, remember? But the repercussions may be more horrible than the clean feel-good aspect of washing our hands.
Libya. Good grief.
Institutions like courts mean nothing if powerful countries won’t abide by their decisions and of course the US is not going to open itself up for lawsuits for damages done or allow its high government officials to be prosecuted. For all the blather about democracies being accountable, it doesn’t work. Democracies do not choose to be accountable to victims in other countries or they haven’t so far. And even if Libya was a great success story, it’s a dodge. It’s powerful Western countries deciding it was in their interest to topple Gaddafi and not an example of powerless people having their day in court. It’s not a model of powerful countries being held accountable.
My immediate goal, one which is somewhat less unachievable, is to have people reject the self- serving framing employed by government officials. The MSM is of course, loyally skeptical when enemy governments say they are acting in good fath, but report these Beltway arguments about our actions with touching naïveté. They probably won’t change either, or not easily, but it’s the age of the Internet– we can all ridicule their BS. And if enough people do this so it becomes a common attitude, even reporters and politicians may notice.
Incidentally, to anticipate an argument, there are legitimate reasons one could have for supporting sovereign immunity, but people who deny the obvious motive of evading accountability are the ones guilty of oversimplifying a complex world.
Libya. Good grief.
Institutions like courts mean nothing if powerful countries won’t abide by their decisions and of course the US is not going to open itself up for lawsuits for damages done or allow its high government officials to be prosecuted. For all the blather about democracies being accountable, it doesn’t work. Democracies do not choose to be accountable to victims in other countries or they haven’t so far. And even if Libya was a great success story, it’s a dodge. It’s powerful Western countries deciding it was in their interest to topple Gaddafi and not an example of powerless people having their day in court. It’s not a model of powerful countries being held accountable.
My immediate goal, one which is somewhat less unachievable, is to have people reject the self- serving framing employed by government officials. The MSM is of course, loyally skeptical when enemy governments say they are acting in good fath, but report these Beltway arguments about our actions with touching naïveté. They probably won’t change either, or not easily, but it’s the age of the Internet– we can all ridicule their BS. And if enough people do this so it becomes a common attitude, even reporters and politicians may notice.
Incidentally, to anticipate an argument, there are legitimate reasons one could have for supporting sovereign immunity, but people who deny the obvious motive of evading accountability are the ones guilty of oversimplifying a complex world.
Libya. Good grief.
Institutions like courts mean nothing if powerful countries won’t abide by their decisions and of course the US is not going to open itself up for lawsuits for damages done or allow its high government officials to be prosecuted. For all the blather about democracies being accountable, it doesn’t work. Democracies do not choose to be accountable to victims in other countries or they haven’t so far. And even if Libya was a great success story, it’s a dodge. It’s powerful Western countries deciding it was in their interest to topple Gaddafi and not an example of powerless people having their day in court. It’s not a model of powerful countries being held accountable.
My immediate goal, one which is somewhat less unachievable, is to have people reject the self- serving framing employed by government officials. The MSM is of course, loyally skeptical when enemy governments say they are acting in good fath, but report these Beltway arguments about our actions with touching naïveté. They probably won’t change either, or not easily, but it’s the age of the Internet– we can all ridicule their BS. And if enough people do this so it becomes a common attitude, even reporters and politicians may notice.
Incidentally, to anticipate an argument, there are legitimate reasons one could have for supporting sovereign immunity, but people who deny the obvious motive of evading accountability are the ones guilty of oversimplifying a complex world.
The MSM is of course, loyally skeptical when enemy governments say they are acting in good fath, but report these Beltway arguments about our actions with touching naïveté.
What’s happening in Syria is an example of the “good faith” of some other powers that exercise influence. I don’t think that this is the MSM’s fault.
The MSM is of course, loyally skeptical when enemy governments say they are acting in good fath, but report these Beltway arguments about our actions with touching naïveté.
What’s happening in Syria is an example of the “good faith” of some other powers that exercise influence. I don’t think that this is the MSM’s fault.
The MSM is of course, loyally skeptical when enemy governments say they are acting in good fath, but report these Beltway arguments about our actions with touching naïveté.
What’s happening in Syria is an example of the “good faith” of some other powers that exercise influence. I don’t think that this is the MSM’s fault.
people who deny the obvious motive of evading accountability are the ones guilty of oversimplifying a complex world.
I don’t see anyone denying the motive of evading “accountability.” The question is whether any country’s domestic courts are well-suited to determining “accountability” regarding what are really international policy disputes.
people who deny the obvious motive of evading accountability are the ones guilty of oversimplifying a complex world.
I don’t see anyone denying the motive of evading “accountability.” The question is whether any country’s domestic courts are well-suited to determining “accountability” regarding what are really international policy disputes.
people who deny the obvious motive of evading accountability are the ones guilty of oversimplifying a complex world.
I don’t see anyone denying the motive of evading “accountability.” The question is whether any country’s domestic courts are well-suited to determining “accountability” regarding what are really international policy disputes.
Institutions like courts mean nothing if powerful countries won’t abide by their decisions….
So are you saying that there is no point to establishing any international institution unless every country (or at least every powerful country) in the world signs on? Because that’s what it sounds like.
I submit that institutions can do a lot of good, even when some countries opt out. Or wait a while, years even, before joining. For example, was the WTO useless, just because China wasn’t a member until recently? (Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that trade is a good thing. Arguing that is a subject for another time.)
Sometimes you have to take a partial step forward if you are to move at all. The ICC is one such partial step. Do I think we should join it? Yes I do. But it is not useless until we join — just imperfect.
Institutions like courts mean nothing if powerful countries won’t abide by their decisions….
So are you saying that there is no point to establishing any international institution unless every country (or at least every powerful country) in the world signs on? Because that’s what it sounds like.
I submit that institutions can do a lot of good, even when some countries opt out. Or wait a while, years even, before joining. For example, was the WTO useless, just because China wasn’t a member until recently? (Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that trade is a good thing. Arguing that is a subject for another time.)
Sometimes you have to take a partial step forward if you are to move at all. The ICC is one such partial step. Do I think we should join it? Yes I do. But it is not useless until we join — just imperfect.
Institutions like courts mean nothing if powerful countries won’t abide by their decisions….
So are you saying that there is no point to establishing any international institution unless every country (or at least every powerful country) in the world signs on? Because that’s what it sounds like.
I submit that institutions can do a lot of good, even when some countries opt out. Or wait a while, years even, before joining. For example, was the WTO useless, just because China wasn’t a member until recently? (Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that trade is a good thing. Arguing that is a subject for another time.)
Sometimes you have to take a partial step forward if you are to move at all. The ICC is one such partial step. Do I think we should join it? Yes I do. But it is not useless until we join — just imperfect.
It’s not simply a question of whether every (powerful) nation joins – it’s also a matter of whether the powerful nations that do join create hard or soft rules to prevent them from being subject to the same range of scrutiny and sanctions as other nations. As to whether anything is better than nothing, if the institutions function in such a way as to be politically subservient to some states but not others, their creation can serve as a firebreak to prevent accountability towards those states while advancing a narrative that this problem is “solved”…
It’s not simply a question of whether every (powerful) nation joins – it’s also a matter of whether the powerful nations that do join create hard or soft rules to prevent them from being subject to the same range of scrutiny and sanctions as other nations. As to whether anything is better than nothing, if the institutions function in such a way as to be politically subservient to some states but not others, their creation can serve as a firebreak to prevent accountability towards those states while advancing a narrative that this problem is “solved”…
It’s not simply a question of whether every (powerful) nation joins – it’s also a matter of whether the powerful nations that do join create hard or soft rules to prevent them from being subject to the same range of scrutiny and sanctions as other nations. As to whether anything is better than nothing, if the institutions function in such a way as to be politically subservient to some states but not others, their creation can serve as a firebreak to prevent accountability towards those states while advancing a narrative that this problem is “solved”…
Well, perhaps.
But it seems to me that a comprehensive solution has a better chance of coming if the problem is labeled (however inaccurately) as “solved.” As opposed to having a lot of argument that it isn’t even a real problem.
Getting agreement that the problem really is a problem is a step forward. After we have that, an argument about whether the problem is solved or not is viable. It ain’t pretty; but sometimes it’s the only path to where you want to end up.
Well, perhaps.
But it seems to me that a comprehensive solution has a better chance of coming if the problem is labeled (however inaccurately) as “solved.” As opposed to having a lot of argument that it isn’t even a real problem.
Getting agreement that the problem really is a problem is a step forward. After we have that, an argument about whether the problem is solved or not is viable. It ain’t pretty; but sometimes it’s the only path to where you want to end up.
Well, perhaps.
But it seems to me that a comprehensive solution has a better chance of coming if the problem is labeled (however inaccurately) as “solved.” As opposed to having a lot of argument that it isn’t even a real problem.
Getting agreement that the problem really is a problem is a step forward. After we have that, an argument about whether the problem is solved or not is viable. It ain’t pretty; but sometimes it’s the only path to where you want to end up.
As to whether anything is better than nothing, if the institutions function in such a way as to be politically subservient to some states but not others, their creation can serve as a firebreak to prevent accountability towards those states while advancing a narrative that this problem is “solved”…
With regard to international institutions generally (such as the UN, NATO, the EU, and other mutual defense treaties), we haven’t had a world war recently. I’ve posted this link before and I’ll do so again, because I look at it frequently: http://www.fallen.io/ww2/
The world is better than it was. We can continue that trend or take really stupid risks by electing a clown.
As to whether anything is better than nothing, if the institutions function in such a way as to be politically subservient to some states but not others, their creation can serve as a firebreak to prevent accountability towards those states while advancing a narrative that this problem is “solved”…
With regard to international institutions generally (such as the UN, NATO, the EU, and other mutual defense treaties), we haven’t had a world war recently. I’ve posted this link before and I’ll do so again, because I look at it frequently: http://www.fallen.io/ww2/
The world is better than it was. We can continue that trend or take really stupid risks by electing a clown.
As to whether anything is better than nothing, if the institutions function in such a way as to be politically subservient to some states but not others, their creation can serve as a firebreak to prevent accountability towards those states while advancing a narrative that this problem is “solved”…
With regard to international institutions generally (such as the UN, NATO, the EU, and other mutual defense treaties), we haven’t had a world war recently. I’ve posted this link before and I’ll do so again, because I look at it frequently: http://www.fallen.io/ww2/
The world is better than it was. We can continue that trend or take really stupid risks by electing a clown.
So at this point, disagreeing with you about anything is advocating a Trump presidency? Classy.
So at this point, disagreeing with you about anything is advocating a Trump presidency? Classy.
So at this point, disagreeing with you about anything is advocating a Trump presidency? Classy.
So at this point, disagreeing with you about anything is advocating a Trump presidency? Classy.
That’s not what I said at all.
On the other hand, my impression is that you’re not working very hard against a Trump presidency with your vote swapping scheme, etc., so there’s that.
So at this point, disagreeing with you about anything is advocating a Trump presidency? Classy.
That’s not what I said at all.
On the other hand, my impression is that you’re not working very hard against a Trump presidency with your vote swapping scheme, etc., so there’s that.
So at this point, disagreeing with you about anything is advocating a Trump presidency? Classy.
That’s not what I said at all.
On the other hand, my impression is that you’re not working very hard against a Trump presidency with your vote swapping scheme, etc., so there’s that.
It’s really hard to parse your last paragraph as anything but a false dichotomy between agreeing with you about policy matters or advocating Trump.
OTOH, you went there. You finally went there! Soooooo… the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party who aren’t doing anything until Election Day are supporting Trump? That’s what you’re saying? ‘Cause I’m doing and going to continue do as much to support Trump as they are… do you actually want to set the bar for “not supporting Trump” as “failing to actively campaign for Clinton”? ‘Cause you just declared most of the country Trump supporters… kinda underscores how very little this means coming from someone as utterly and unwaveringly partisan as you…
It’s really hard to parse your last paragraph as anything but a false dichotomy between agreeing with you about policy matters or advocating Trump.
OTOH, you went there. You finally went there! Soooooo… the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party who aren’t doing anything until Election Day are supporting Trump? That’s what you’re saying? ‘Cause I’m doing and going to continue do as much to support Trump as they are… do you actually want to set the bar for “not supporting Trump” as “failing to actively campaign for Clinton”? ‘Cause you just declared most of the country Trump supporters… kinda underscores how very little this means coming from someone as utterly and unwaveringly partisan as you…
It’s really hard to parse your last paragraph as anything but a false dichotomy between agreeing with you about policy matters or advocating Trump.
OTOH, you went there. You finally went there! Soooooo… the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party who aren’t doing anything until Election Day are supporting Trump? That’s what you’re saying? ‘Cause I’m doing and going to continue do as much to support Trump as they are… do you actually want to set the bar for “not supporting Trump” as “failing to actively campaign for Clinton”? ‘Cause you just declared most of the country Trump supporters… kinda underscores how very little this means coming from someone as utterly and unwaveringly partisan as you…
I just “declared”?
I’m a partisan in that I think that Democrats consistently govern better than Republicans, and that the country is too close to play games. The polls favor Clinton, and I hope they forecast the election. I’ve been there, done that when the purists wouldn’t focus.
Bush was a much worse nightmare than Gore would have been (for those of us, not me, who would have considered Gore to have been a nightmare at all). The Nader people still contend that they didn’t lose the election for us. I guarantee you that they didn’t help win it. Thanks, purists!
I just “declared”?
I’m a partisan in that I think that Democrats consistently govern better than Republicans, and that the country is too close to play games. The polls favor Clinton, and I hope they forecast the election. I’ve been there, done that when the purists wouldn’t focus.
Bush was a much worse nightmare than Gore would have been (for those of us, not me, who would have considered Gore to have been a nightmare at all). The Nader people still contend that they didn’t lose the election for us. I guarantee you that they didn’t help win it. Thanks, purists!
I just “declared”?
I’m a partisan in that I think that Democrats consistently govern better than Republicans, and that the country is too close to play games. The polls favor Clinton, and I hope they forecast the election. I’ve been there, done that when the purists wouldn’t focus.
Bush was a much worse nightmare than Gore would have been (for those of us, not me, who would have considered Gore to have been a nightmare at all). The Nader people still contend that they didn’t lose the election for us. I guarantee you that they didn’t help win it. Thanks, purists!
Gore didn’t get enough votes to win. He lost. His job was to convince people to vote for him. He didn’t do that. Hillary is failing to do that in huge swaths of demographics, if she could convince millennial’s that she could represent them they would vote for her. Same for me for that matter.
The partisan in you, sapient, refuses to admit that if she loses, she did it. She lost. No one “should” vote for her.
Gore didn’t get enough votes to win. He lost. His job was to convince people to vote for him. He didn’t do that. Hillary is failing to do that in huge swaths of demographics, if she could convince millennial’s that she could represent them they would vote for her. Same for me for that matter.
The partisan in you, sapient, refuses to admit that if she loses, she did it. She lost. No one “should” vote for her.
Gore didn’t get enough votes to win. He lost. His job was to convince people to vote for him. He didn’t do that. Hillary is failing to do that in huge swaths of demographics, if she could convince millennial’s that she could represent them they would vote for her. Same for me for that matter.
The partisan in you, sapient, refuses to admit that if she loses, she did it. She lost. No one “should” vote for her.
She hasn’t “won” your precious vote, Marty? ‘Cuz you prefer the clown? Good for you, you “nonpartisan”.
I get it that you’re voting for the uninformed antigovernment dude (not that there’s anything wrong with weed). Good choice, bro!
She hasn’t “won” your precious vote, Marty? ‘Cuz you prefer the clown? Good for you, you “nonpartisan”.
I get it that you’re voting for the uninformed antigovernment dude (not that there’s anything wrong with weed). Good choice, bro!
She hasn’t “won” your precious vote, Marty? ‘Cuz you prefer the clown? Good for you, you “nonpartisan”.
I get it that you’re voting for the uninformed antigovernment dude (not that there’s anything wrong with weed). Good choice, bro!
nope, she hasn’t. I think it is precious, and, oddly, you seem to really think so too.
nope, she hasn’t. I think it is precious, and, oddly, you seem to really think so too.
nope, she hasn’t. I think it is precious, and, oddly, you seem to really think so too.
Well, you can just pat yourself on the back then. You’ll need it if the worst happens,
Well, you can just pat yourself on the back then. You’ll need it if the worst happens,
Well, you can just pat yourself on the back then. You’ll need it if the worst happens,
but, actually, you might need a whip.
but, actually, you might need a whip.
but, actually, you might need a whip.
As a (personal!) rule of thumb, I figure I can and should make a protest vote when the two main alternatives are roughly equal. Equally good or equally bad; doesn’t matter. If they really are roughly equal, making a protest can be a good thing to do — assuming that you feel a need to protest, of course.
So the question this time, as always, has to be: Are the two major candidates roughly equal? It’s a question that each of us has to answer for ourselves, of course.
But if you are going to make a protest vote, and want to be confident of being able to look yourself in the face in the mirror the day after the election, you really need to be able to say that they are.
As a (personal!) rule of thumb, I figure I can and should make a protest vote when the two main alternatives are roughly equal. Equally good or equally bad; doesn’t matter. If they really are roughly equal, making a protest can be a good thing to do — assuming that you feel a need to protest, of course.
So the question this time, as always, has to be: Are the two major candidates roughly equal? It’s a question that each of us has to answer for ourselves, of course.
But if you are going to make a protest vote, and want to be confident of being able to look yourself in the face in the mirror the day after the election, you really need to be able to say that they are.
As a (personal!) rule of thumb, I figure I can and should make a protest vote when the two main alternatives are roughly equal. Equally good or equally bad; doesn’t matter. If they really are roughly equal, making a protest can be a good thing to do — assuming that you feel a need to protest, of course.
So the question this time, as always, has to be: Are the two major candidates roughly equal? It’s a question that each of us has to answer for ourselves, of course.
But if you are going to make a protest vote, and want to be confident of being able to look yourself in the face in the mirror the day after the election, you really need to be able to say that they are.
wj,
the way voting works is that everyone votes for the candidate they prefer and the one with the most votes wins. I much prefer Gary Johnson to anyone else running. Not to mention that if we could get out of the “either this one or that one has to win” mode we might come up with better candidates all around.
And, I haven’t responded much about Johnson. But, he does hours of interviews a day and three things he has said get hours of airtime. The foreign leader thing I am sure his basic failing was that he didn’t say shut the f up while I consider the answer to your question, while the ahole just kept running his mouth. I am sure no decision in the WH will be made with a reporter barking at him, and as President he will just tell them to shut up.
But seriously, in all the thousands of hours of interviews he has done there are really two times he drew a blank. The Clinton attack dogs have played those a million times. I wonder why they get so much press, particularly from Clinton supporters.
No, I really don’t wonder.
He keeps taking voters away from her because he is intelligent, has stances on the issues compatible with a huge portion of the American public, is on the right side of every social issue and has a smart and consistent stance on immigration.
He is a small l libertarian so he doesn’t believe in doing away with the safety net, only making sure it is used for people who need it.
He believes in free trade to an extent that, admittedly, I hope he reigns in a little, but certainly shares my view of avoiding military interventionism.
And, overall, he seems honest and transparent.
So sapient can take up the talking points, trying to make him out to be way out there, but he is only in the sense that the Second Foundation was way out at the other end of the galaxy.
He is far from either Trump or Clinton because he sits right in the center that everyone complains never gets represented.
wj,
the way voting works is that everyone votes for the candidate they prefer and the one with the most votes wins. I much prefer Gary Johnson to anyone else running. Not to mention that if we could get out of the “either this one or that one has to win” mode we might come up with better candidates all around.
And, I haven’t responded much about Johnson. But, he does hours of interviews a day and three things he has said get hours of airtime. The foreign leader thing I am sure his basic failing was that he didn’t say shut the f up while I consider the answer to your question, while the ahole just kept running his mouth. I am sure no decision in the WH will be made with a reporter barking at him, and as President he will just tell them to shut up.
But seriously, in all the thousands of hours of interviews he has done there are really two times he drew a blank. The Clinton attack dogs have played those a million times. I wonder why they get so much press, particularly from Clinton supporters.
No, I really don’t wonder.
He keeps taking voters away from her because he is intelligent, has stances on the issues compatible with a huge portion of the American public, is on the right side of every social issue and has a smart and consistent stance on immigration.
He is a small l libertarian so he doesn’t believe in doing away with the safety net, only making sure it is used for people who need it.
He believes in free trade to an extent that, admittedly, I hope he reigns in a little, but certainly shares my view of avoiding military interventionism.
And, overall, he seems honest and transparent.
So sapient can take up the talking points, trying to make him out to be way out there, but he is only in the sense that the Second Foundation was way out at the other end of the galaxy.
He is far from either Trump or Clinton because he sits right in the center that everyone complains never gets represented.
wj,
the way voting works is that everyone votes for the candidate they prefer and the one with the most votes wins. I much prefer Gary Johnson to anyone else running. Not to mention that if we could get out of the “either this one or that one has to win” mode we might come up with better candidates all around.
And, I haven’t responded much about Johnson. But, he does hours of interviews a day and three things he has said get hours of airtime. The foreign leader thing I am sure his basic failing was that he didn’t say shut the f up while I consider the answer to your question, while the ahole just kept running his mouth. I am sure no decision in the WH will be made with a reporter barking at him, and as President he will just tell them to shut up.
But seriously, in all the thousands of hours of interviews he has done there are really two times he drew a blank. The Clinton attack dogs have played those a million times. I wonder why they get so much press, particularly from Clinton supporters.
No, I really don’t wonder.
He keeps taking voters away from her because he is intelligent, has stances on the issues compatible with a huge portion of the American public, is on the right side of every social issue and has a smart and consistent stance on immigration.
He is a small l libertarian so he doesn’t believe in doing away with the safety net, only making sure it is used for people who need it.
He believes in free trade to an extent that, admittedly, I hope he reigns in a little, but certainly shares my view of avoiding military interventionism.
And, overall, he seems honest and transparent.
So sapient can take up the talking points, trying to make him out to be way out there, but he is only in the sense that the Second Foundation was way out at the other end of the galaxy.
He is far from either Trump or Clinton because he sits right in the center that everyone complains never gets represented.
from LGM comments
Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, François Hollande, Bashar al Assad and Gary Johnson walk into a bar.
Johnson says, “Who the f**k are these people?”
from LGM comments
Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, François Hollande, Bashar al Assad and Gary Johnson walk into a bar.
Johnson says, “Who the f**k are these people?”
from LGM comments
Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, François Hollande, Bashar al Assad and Gary Johnson walk into a bar.
Johnson says, “Who the f**k are these people?”
Marty, when Johnson (or anybody else from outside the two major parties) gets to the point that he is polling (not getting actual votes in an election; just polling) above about 25%, then it’s time to talk about whether we can “get out of the either this one or that one has to win mode”. Until that day arrives (and I agree it will be great when/if it does), refusing to face the fact that one of the two major party candidates is going to win is just refusing to face reality.
I’m fine with trying to change that reality. Indeed, I’d like to see it change. (For nostalgic reasons, I’d prefer to see the GOP return to sanity. But I have to face reality, too. And I don’t see that happening any time soon.) But making that happen is going to be a matter of extended grass-roots work. The kind that gets, for example, (small l) libertarians elected to local offices. And thus starts to build up some wide-spread support for that third party that is more than just protest-vote deep.
It’s not quick. It’s not exciting. But it is necessary, if you want to see the change you are calling for. Just a protest vote every 4 years simply won’t get it done.
Marty, when Johnson (or anybody else from outside the two major parties) gets to the point that he is polling (not getting actual votes in an election; just polling) above about 25%, then it’s time to talk about whether we can “get out of the either this one or that one has to win mode”. Until that day arrives (and I agree it will be great when/if it does), refusing to face the fact that one of the two major party candidates is going to win is just refusing to face reality.
I’m fine with trying to change that reality. Indeed, I’d like to see it change. (For nostalgic reasons, I’d prefer to see the GOP return to sanity. But I have to face reality, too. And I don’t see that happening any time soon.) But making that happen is going to be a matter of extended grass-roots work. The kind that gets, for example, (small l) libertarians elected to local offices. And thus starts to build up some wide-spread support for that third party that is more than just protest-vote deep.
It’s not quick. It’s not exciting. But it is necessary, if you want to see the change you are calling for. Just a protest vote every 4 years simply won’t get it done.
Marty, when Johnson (or anybody else from outside the two major parties) gets to the point that he is polling (not getting actual votes in an election; just polling) above about 25%, then it’s time to talk about whether we can “get out of the either this one or that one has to win mode”. Until that day arrives (and I agree it will be great when/if it does), refusing to face the fact that one of the two major party candidates is going to win is just refusing to face reality.
I’m fine with trying to change that reality. Indeed, I’d like to see it change. (For nostalgic reasons, I’d prefer to see the GOP return to sanity. But I have to face reality, too. And I don’t see that happening any time soon.) But making that happen is going to be a matter of extended grass-roots work. The kind that gets, for example, (small l) libertarians elected to local offices. And thus starts to build up some wide-spread support for that third party that is more than just protest-vote deep.
It’s not quick. It’s not exciting. But it is necessary, if you want to see the change you are calling for. Just a protest vote every 4 years simply won’t get it done.
Wow, that protest vote thing again. I think I should vote for the candidate I think would be the best President. If they are on the ballot in my state. I don’t consider that a protest. Protest means I’m voting against something. That’s simply not correct.
I have to face reality…
I am protesting the idea that anyone “should” vote for either of ClinTrump. But not with my vote, that’s a positive statement.
Wow, that protest vote thing again. I think I should vote for the candidate I think would be the best President. If they are on the ballot in my state. I don’t consider that a protest. Protest means I’m voting against something. That’s simply not correct.
I have to face reality…
I am protesting the idea that anyone “should” vote for either of ClinTrump. But not with my vote, that’s a positive statement.
Wow, that protest vote thing again. I think I should vote for the candidate I think would be the best President. If they are on the ballot in my state. I don’t consider that a protest. Protest means I’m voting against something. That’s simply not correct.
I have to face reality…
I am protesting the idea that anyone “should” vote for either of ClinTrump. But not with my vote, that’s a positive statement.
“But seriously, in all the thousands of hours of interviews he has done there are really two times he drew a blank.”
I demand the transcripts.
Besides, it’s when he doesn’t draw a blank and actually articulates a position that he makes me sick to my stomach.
Yes, I might share areas of agreement with him. And millennials by and large would like to toke up at will, fine by me, and all else is secondary.
Wait until they get a load of Johnson’s 28% value added tax on dope. They could see it now, but that would be putting two and two together, which in this know-nothing political climate is the highest, most impossible math of them all.
“He believes in free trade to an extent that, admittedly, I hope he reigns in a little, but certainly shares my view of avoiding military interventionism.”
From wikipedia: Johnson supports free trade and opposes tariffs, “period.” He believes free market trade corrects inequities between trading partners, such as foreign countries’ subsidies for certain industries.[8] Johnson supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Your statement of how Johnson’s views on free trade might coincide with yours is pure elision.
If you had stated, “Trump has malign racist views that have no place in a free society that, admittedly, I hope he reigns in a little, but certainly shares my view of getting rid of food stamps” ….
or … “Clinton believes in throwing all power to the Federal government regarding healthcare that, admittedly, I hope she reigns it in a little, but certainly shares my view that children should not go wanting when it comes to immunizations” …
… you are going to get the full package with all three. When in his life has Gary Johnson moderated any of his beliefs to accommodate your discomfort?
“He is far from either Trump or Clinton because he sits right in the center that everyone complains never gets represented.”
The center? No, he doesn’t. He is at the far left or the far right fringe of nearly every issue, with the social issues dominating the former and fiscal, Second Amendment, and free trade issues dominating the latter.
It’s extreme ice on Johnson’s one hand and extreme fire on the other, no exceptions. The center doesn’t want extremism on either end. It would like a little nuance across the board, which is in f*cking short supply apparently from whomever we’re going to vote for, but still, Johnson ain’t the center on anything, and certainly the Libertarian Party platform and its true believers wouldn’t know compromise or nuance if it could be purchased cheaply and tariff-free from a sweat shop in the Marianas, mounted on a harness, and shoved up their butts.
You can’t average the absolute right to procure an abortion without governmental interference, the absolute position to get rid of all taxation and replace it with a regressive VAT, the absolute eradication of Obamacare and the resulting cold-blooded murder of American citizens (remember the pigshit meme of how Obamacare was causing such dreadful “uncertainty” for business and those who take adequate healthcare coverage as a given, well, wait until 20 million Americans have their healthcare, high deductibles and all, kicked out from under them, and by the way, Gary Johnson believes, I am sure, absolutely, the fucking shithead, that the federal law that prohibits hospital emergency rooms from leaving the fucking destitute gurneyless on the sidewalk is one regulation too far, and if he denies that position, he’s a fucking liar, because allowing that regulation collapses his entire absolute worldview and ideology), and come up with anything resembling a middle.
Especially if you add in his absolutism on the Second Amendment. His worldview is a recipe for killing each other.
As opposed to Trump, who wants to do all the killing himself, the arrogant, stupid, racist, son of swine.
And Hillary lies, let’s not leave that aside, for balance.
My favorite Gary Johnsonism so far is this, since I live in Colorado, and the little I know about the issue he addresses here …
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/FactCheck_Unpacking_pots_impact_in_Colorado.html
…deserves a Nobel Prize compared to the simplistic nothing he pulled out of his stoned ass.
I’m not a user, but I agree with legalizing pot. But the traffic and attendant problems he glosses over with his fact-free observation in the article are a little more complicated than one who thinks any attempt at governing is a mortal ideological sin..
What is not included, I’m pretty sure, in the article from the original interview (which I can’t locate at the moment; maybe it will be in the transcripts you will provide forthwith), is Johnson’s claim that when he was high much of his life and drove a vehicle, he was NEVER pulled over, because he drove so slowly on account of the fact that he was so paranoid about being stopped for driving while under the influence … and therefore, ipso shitso, you see, smoking dope while driving actually reduces traffic infractions and thus enhances safety.
I can’t wait until he brings that logic to the problems of Aleppo, the acronym.
What we have here is a Cheech and Chong joke, hilarious in its place, but not in the White House.
You’ll notice I haven’t demanded you vote for Clinton. Tell you what, you vote for Cheech, I’ll vote for Chong. Daffy Duck is running on both tickets as Vice President.
But if Trump is elected, I promise you I am going to be the unreasonable (one among many, one hopes; I don’t do lone wolf stuff) man referenced by Shaw, and I know it harshes the mellow of folks I deeply respect, but an unreasonable man without the automatic weapons provided us by the shithead Second Amendment believers is not a man who makes any progress against the pure malign evil of Republican Trump and his tens of millions of fellow cold-blooded corrupt murderers.
Right, Republican Trump. What is it this foul Beast liked about conservatives that he decided to run as their leader and the leader of that Party. His judgement about conservatives, by and large, has been smack dab on the money.
He’s got conservatives’ number. I think it’s probably 666. The 911 number will be deactivated once Trump is elected and there will be no place to fucking hide because this subhuman filth and his National Enquirer, Sean Hannity, Roger Ailes, Vlad Putin, Paul Ryan, Roger Stone, white supremacist, Hispanic-murdering, nigger-hating, fag-bashing, tax-cheating (and proud of it; I’m sure now that it’s known he doesn’t pay ANY taxes has brought a bunch of the NeverTrump fakers back into his fold), woman-shaming, Muslim family slaughtering piece of shit braintrust is going to make gunfire the national dial tone.
“But seriously, in all the thousands of hours of interviews he has done there are really two times he drew a blank.”
I demand the transcripts.
Besides, it’s when he doesn’t draw a blank and actually articulates a position that he makes me sick to my stomach.
Yes, I might share areas of agreement with him. And millennials by and large would like to toke up at will, fine by me, and all else is secondary.
Wait until they get a load of Johnson’s 28% value added tax on dope. They could see it now, but that would be putting two and two together, which in this know-nothing political climate is the highest, most impossible math of them all.
“He believes in free trade to an extent that, admittedly, I hope he reigns in a little, but certainly shares my view of avoiding military interventionism.”
From wikipedia: Johnson supports free trade and opposes tariffs, “period.” He believes free market trade corrects inequities between trading partners, such as foreign countries’ subsidies for certain industries.[8] Johnson supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Your statement of how Johnson’s views on free trade might coincide with yours is pure elision.
If you had stated, “Trump has malign racist views that have no place in a free society that, admittedly, I hope he reigns in a little, but certainly shares my view of getting rid of food stamps” ….
or … “Clinton believes in throwing all power to the Federal government regarding healthcare that, admittedly, I hope she reigns it in a little, but certainly shares my view that children should not go wanting when it comes to immunizations” …
… you are going to get the full package with all three. When in his life has Gary Johnson moderated any of his beliefs to accommodate your discomfort?
“He is far from either Trump or Clinton because he sits right in the center that everyone complains never gets represented.”
The center? No, he doesn’t. He is at the far left or the far right fringe of nearly every issue, with the social issues dominating the former and fiscal, Second Amendment, and free trade issues dominating the latter.
It’s extreme ice on Johnson’s one hand and extreme fire on the other, no exceptions. The center doesn’t want extremism on either end. It would like a little nuance across the board, which is in f*cking short supply apparently from whomever we’re going to vote for, but still, Johnson ain’t the center on anything, and certainly the Libertarian Party platform and its true believers wouldn’t know compromise or nuance if it could be purchased cheaply and tariff-free from a sweat shop in the Marianas, mounted on a harness, and shoved up their butts.
You can’t average the absolute right to procure an abortion without governmental interference, the absolute position to get rid of all taxation and replace it with a regressive VAT, the absolute eradication of Obamacare and the resulting cold-blooded murder of American citizens (remember the pigshit meme of how Obamacare was causing such dreadful “uncertainty” for business and those who take adequate healthcare coverage as a given, well, wait until 20 million Americans have their healthcare, high deductibles and all, kicked out from under them, and by the way, Gary Johnson believes, I am sure, absolutely, the fucking shithead, that the federal law that prohibits hospital emergency rooms from leaving the fucking destitute gurneyless on the sidewalk is one regulation too far, and if he denies that position, he’s a fucking liar, because allowing that regulation collapses his entire absolute worldview and ideology), and come up with anything resembling a middle.
Especially if you add in his absolutism on the Second Amendment. His worldview is a recipe for killing each other.
As opposed to Trump, who wants to do all the killing himself, the arrogant, stupid, racist, son of swine.
And Hillary lies, let’s not leave that aside, for balance.
My favorite Gary Johnsonism so far is this, since I live in Colorado, and the little I know about the issue he addresses here …
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/FactCheck_Unpacking_pots_impact_in_Colorado.html
…deserves a Nobel Prize compared to the simplistic nothing he pulled out of his stoned ass.
I’m not a user, but I agree with legalizing pot. But the traffic and attendant problems he glosses over with his fact-free observation in the article are a little more complicated than one who thinks any attempt at governing is a mortal ideological sin..
What is not included, I’m pretty sure, in the article from the original interview (which I can’t locate at the moment; maybe it will be in the transcripts you will provide forthwith), is Johnson’s claim that when he was high much of his life and drove a vehicle, he was NEVER pulled over, because he drove so slowly on account of the fact that he was so paranoid about being stopped for driving while under the influence … and therefore, ipso shitso, you see, smoking dope while driving actually reduces traffic infractions and thus enhances safety.
I can’t wait until he brings that logic to the problems of Aleppo, the acronym.
What we have here is a Cheech and Chong joke, hilarious in its place, but not in the White House.
You’ll notice I haven’t demanded you vote for Clinton. Tell you what, you vote for Cheech, I’ll vote for Chong. Daffy Duck is running on both tickets as Vice President.
But if Trump is elected, I promise you I am going to be the unreasonable (one among many, one hopes; I don’t do lone wolf stuff) man referenced by Shaw, and I know it harshes the mellow of folks I deeply respect, but an unreasonable man without the automatic weapons provided us by the shithead Second Amendment believers is not a man who makes any progress against the pure malign evil of Republican Trump and his tens of millions of fellow cold-blooded corrupt murderers.
Right, Republican Trump. What is it this foul Beast liked about conservatives that he decided to run as their leader and the leader of that Party. His judgement about conservatives, by and large, has been smack dab on the money.
He’s got conservatives’ number. I think it’s probably 666. The 911 number will be deactivated once Trump is elected and there will be no place to fucking hide because this subhuman filth and his National Enquirer, Sean Hannity, Roger Ailes, Vlad Putin, Paul Ryan, Roger Stone, white supremacist, Hispanic-murdering, nigger-hating, fag-bashing, tax-cheating (and proud of it; I’m sure now that it’s known he doesn’t pay ANY taxes has brought a bunch of the NeverTrump fakers back into his fold), woman-shaming, Muslim family slaughtering piece of shit braintrust is going to make gunfire the national dial tone.
“But seriously, in all the thousands of hours of interviews he has done there are really two times he drew a blank.”
I demand the transcripts.
Besides, it’s when he doesn’t draw a blank and actually articulates a position that he makes me sick to my stomach.
Yes, I might share areas of agreement with him. And millennials by and large would like to toke up at will, fine by me, and all else is secondary.
Wait until they get a load of Johnson’s 28% value added tax on dope. They could see it now, but that would be putting two and two together, which in this know-nothing political climate is the highest, most impossible math of them all.
“He believes in free trade to an extent that, admittedly, I hope he reigns in a little, but certainly shares my view of avoiding military interventionism.”
From wikipedia: Johnson supports free trade and opposes tariffs, “period.” He believes free market trade corrects inequities between trading partners, such as foreign countries’ subsidies for certain industries.[8] Johnson supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Your statement of how Johnson’s views on free trade might coincide with yours is pure elision.
If you had stated, “Trump has malign racist views that have no place in a free society that, admittedly, I hope he reigns in a little, but certainly shares my view of getting rid of food stamps” ….
or … “Clinton believes in throwing all power to the Federal government regarding healthcare that, admittedly, I hope she reigns it in a little, but certainly shares my view that children should not go wanting when it comes to immunizations” …
… you are going to get the full package with all three. When in his life has Gary Johnson moderated any of his beliefs to accommodate your discomfort?
“He is far from either Trump or Clinton because he sits right in the center that everyone complains never gets represented.”
The center? No, he doesn’t. He is at the far left or the far right fringe of nearly every issue, with the social issues dominating the former and fiscal, Second Amendment, and free trade issues dominating the latter.
It’s extreme ice on Johnson’s one hand and extreme fire on the other, no exceptions. The center doesn’t want extremism on either end. It would like a little nuance across the board, which is in f*cking short supply apparently from whomever we’re going to vote for, but still, Johnson ain’t the center on anything, and certainly the Libertarian Party platform and its true believers wouldn’t know compromise or nuance if it could be purchased cheaply and tariff-free from a sweat shop in the Marianas, mounted on a harness, and shoved up their butts.
You can’t average the absolute right to procure an abortion without governmental interference, the absolute position to get rid of all taxation and replace it with a regressive VAT, the absolute eradication of Obamacare and the resulting cold-blooded murder of American citizens (remember the pigshit meme of how Obamacare was causing such dreadful “uncertainty” for business and those who take adequate healthcare coverage as a given, well, wait until 20 million Americans have their healthcare, high deductibles and all, kicked out from under them, and by the way, Gary Johnson believes, I am sure, absolutely, the fucking shithead, that the federal law that prohibits hospital emergency rooms from leaving the fucking destitute gurneyless on the sidewalk is one regulation too far, and if he denies that position, he’s a fucking liar, because allowing that regulation collapses his entire absolute worldview and ideology), and come up with anything resembling a middle.
Especially if you add in his absolutism on the Second Amendment. His worldview is a recipe for killing each other.
As opposed to Trump, who wants to do all the killing himself, the arrogant, stupid, racist, son of swine.
And Hillary lies, let’s not leave that aside, for balance.
My favorite Gary Johnsonism so far is this, since I live in Colorado, and the little I know about the issue he addresses here …
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/FactCheck_Unpacking_pots_impact_in_Colorado.html
…deserves a Nobel Prize compared to the simplistic nothing he pulled out of his stoned ass.
I’m not a user, but I agree with legalizing pot. But the traffic and attendant problems he glosses over with his fact-free observation in the article are a little more complicated than one who thinks any attempt at governing is a mortal ideological sin..
What is not included, I’m pretty sure, in the article from the original interview (which I can’t locate at the moment; maybe it will be in the transcripts you will provide forthwith), is Johnson’s claim that when he was high much of his life and drove a vehicle, he was NEVER pulled over, because he drove so slowly on account of the fact that he was so paranoid about being stopped for driving while under the influence … and therefore, ipso shitso, you see, smoking dope while driving actually reduces traffic infractions and thus enhances safety.
I can’t wait until he brings that logic to the problems of Aleppo, the acronym.
What we have here is a Cheech and Chong joke, hilarious in its place, but not in the White House.
You’ll notice I haven’t demanded you vote for Clinton. Tell you what, you vote for Cheech, I’ll vote for Chong. Daffy Duck is running on both tickets as Vice President.
But if Trump is elected, I promise you I am going to be the unreasonable (one among many, one hopes; I don’t do lone wolf stuff) man referenced by Shaw, and I know it harshes the mellow of folks I deeply respect, but an unreasonable man without the automatic weapons provided us by the shithead Second Amendment believers is not a man who makes any progress against the pure malign evil of Republican Trump and his tens of millions of fellow cold-blooded corrupt murderers.
Right, Republican Trump. What is it this foul Beast liked about conservatives that he decided to run as their leader and the leader of that Party. His judgement about conservatives, by and large, has been smack dab on the money.
He’s got conservatives’ number. I think it’s probably 666. The 911 number will be deactivated once Trump is elected and there will be no place to fucking hide because this subhuman filth and his National Enquirer, Sean Hannity, Roger Ailes, Vlad Putin, Paul Ryan, Roger Stone, white supremacist, Hispanic-murdering, nigger-hating, fag-bashing, tax-cheating (and proud of it; I’m sure now that it’s known he doesn’t pay ANY taxes has brought a bunch of the NeverTrump fakers back into his fold), woman-shaming, Muslim family slaughtering piece of shit braintrust is going to make gunfire the national dial tone.
You know, for an epic rant, that hangs together pretty well. It begins in the lower registers, hits all of the nerve centers along the way, and builds to an utterly preposterous but clear-as-a-bell a fifth above high C.
YMMV.
You know, for an epic rant, that hangs together pretty well. It begins in the lower registers, hits all of the nerve centers along the way, and builds to an utterly preposterous but clear-as-a-bell a fifth above high C.
YMMV.
You know, for an epic rant, that hangs together pretty well. It begins in the lower registers, hits all of the nerve centers along the way, and builds to an utterly preposterous but clear-as-a-bell a fifth above high C.
YMMV.
I was going to just throw another Shaw quote at Marty
“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
but I’m glad I didn’t, I would have stepped on that epic rant. Thanks Count.
I was going to just throw another Shaw quote at Marty
“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
but I’m glad I didn’t, I would have stepped on that epic rant. Thanks Count.
I was going to just throw another Shaw quote at Marty
“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
but I’m glad I didn’t, I would have stepped on that epic rant. Thanks Count.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/debate-commission-trump-microphone
Yeah, he had audio/microphone issues alright. The problem he references was the thing was on so 100 million folks could hear every malign word he said.
No, the fantastic issue we have is that after hearing every word he said, 40-some percent of the electorate cupped their good ears with their hand, and proclaimed “Cracky, that fucker hates everyone I hate. I heard every word and I’m voting for him.”
By the way, I predict Gary Johnson will be Budget Director in the Trump Administration. He’ll testify before Congress in a lisp with his tongue clenched between his front teeth and the “Ayes” will have it.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/debate-commission-trump-microphone
Yeah, he had audio/microphone issues alright. The problem he references was the thing was on so 100 million folks could hear every malign word he said.
No, the fantastic issue we have is that after hearing every word he said, 40-some percent of the electorate cupped their good ears with their hand, and proclaimed “Cracky, that fucker hates everyone I hate. I heard every word and I’m voting for him.”
By the way, I predict Gary Johnson will be Budget Director in the Trump Administration. He’ll testify before Congress in a lisp with his tongue clenched between his front teeth and the “Ayes” will have it.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/debate-commission-trump-microphone
Yeah, he had audio/microphone issues alright. The problem he references was the thing was on so 100 million folks could hear every malign word he said.
No, the fantastic issue we have is that after hearing every word he said, 40-some percent of the electorate cupped their good ears with their hand, and proclaimed “Cracky, that fucker hates everyone I hate. I heard every word and I’m voting for him.”
By the way, I predict Gary Johnson will be Budget Director in the Trump Administration. He’ll testify before Congress in a lisp with his tongue clenched between his front teeth and the “Ayes” will have it.
The Count: You can’t average the absolute right to procure an abortion … the absolute position to get rid of all taxation … the absolute eradication of Obamacare … his absolutism on the Second Amendment … and come up with anything resembling a middle.
Absolutely correct. Not reasonably correct, or Third-Way-correct, or middle-of-the-road correct, but absofuckinglutely correct.
Which prompts me to point out the obvious again: elections are not about “bringing us together”; they are about who wins — and who loses.
The Americans who vote for He, Trump (whether because they really like him or because they’ve been suckered by him) must not only be defeated, they must be seen to be defeated.
We can then spend the next four years addressing their actual concerns instead of their resentments and their delusions. That goes for Johnson voters, too. And Stein voters, if there are any left.
–TP
The Count: You can’t average the absolute right to procure an abortion … the absolute position to get rid of all taxation … the absolute eradication of Obamacare … his absolutism on the Second Amendment … and come up with anything resembling a middle.
Absolutely correct. Not reasonably correct, or Third-Way-correct, or middle-of-the-road correct, but absofuckinglutely correct.
Which prompts me to point out the obvious again: elections are not about “bringing us together”; they are about who wins — and who loses.
The Americans who vote for He, Trump (whether because they really like him or because they’ve been suckered by him) must not only be defeated, they must be seen to be defeated.
We can then spend the next four years addressing their actual concerns instead of their resentments and their delusions. That goes for Johnson voters, too. And Stein voters, if there are any left.
–TP
The Count: You can’t average the absolute right to procure an abortion … the absolute position to get rid of all taxation … the absolute eradication of Obamacare … his absolutism on the Second Amendment … and come up with anything resembling a middle.
Absolutely correct. Not reasonably correct, or Third-Way-correct, or middle-of-the-road correct, but absofuckinglutely correct.
Which prompts me to point out the obvious again: elections are not about “bringing us together”; they are about who wins — and who loses.
The Americans who vote for He, Trump (whether because they really like him or because they’ve been suckered by him) must not only be defeated, they must be seen to be defeated.
We can then spend the next four years addressing their actual concerns instead of their resentments and their delusions. That goes for Johnson voters, too. And Stein voters, if there are any left.
–TP
Epic rant, Count!
What Tony said.
Gary Johnson and his extremist free market ideology represents the middle? Frankly, that is absurd.
But I do applaud the consensus trading of quotes from that wild eyed socialist, GB Shaw.
We might be on to something. Well done!
Epic rant, Count!
What Tony said.
Gary Johnson and his extremist free market ideology represents the middle? Frankly, that is absurd.
But I do applaud the consensus trading of quotes from that wild eyed socialist, GB Shaw.
We might be on to something. Well done!
Epic rant, Count!
What Tony said.
Gary Johnson and his extremist free market ideology represents the middle? Frankly, that is absurd.
But I do applaud the consensus trading of quotes from that wild eyed socialist, GB Shaw.
We might be on to something. Well done!
While I’m wasting my time before I take advantage of this beautiful Fall day and go on a stress-free hike in the foothills west of Denver, one udda ting over heah.
A few weeks back, Marty, and I’m sure it was mere entertaining eye-poking on his part and he really didn’t mean it, threw in the off-handed anti-Clinton meme in a comment regarding the dozens (more?) of Clinton associates involved in their “scandals” who have “mysteriously”, and under “suspicious circumstances” died in one way or another, a la (maybe it was Allah) Vince Foster, which we’re going to hear more about from Marty’s mortal enemy, Donald Trump in the coming wonderful weeks in these closing days of the Republic, not that the stock market won’t soar even if the Republic ceases to exist, it being the Republic.
My question is this: If I were Lady MacBeth, otherwise know as Hillary Clinton, why would I waste time and worry taking out so many of these characters, friends of mine, by making their beheadings look like a simple case of prostate cancer, for example, and yet not one of her really mortal enemies … I’m talking David Bossie, Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, Sean Hannity, the entire staff of Judicial Watch, and any gargantuan number of right wing filth … looks any the worse for wear after 30 years of gunning for her. In fact, they are walking around in rude good health, telling the same lies they always have and she can’t find a way to shut them up for good, maybe by having one of her many killers insert a needle mounted on the tip of an umbrella into their thighs while they wait for the light to change, or draining the brake fluid from their cars on a rain-swept night, or maybe arranging for their lifeboat-less cruise ships to run aground, founder, and sink in flames as they meet in the ship’s grand ballroom to plot her demise and the ruination of the country.
Why this incompetence on her part, for someone so ruthless as we are led to believe? Why this nearly 100% kill rate among her associates, but not one of her enemies or their horrific children has a scratch on them after all these decades.
She’s killed all the wrong people.
You know what is mysterious. That THEY are still among the living. I mean, what is Huma Abedin doing with all her time.
Look, if I was working for Hillary behind the scenes in some lethal capacity, that little park where Vince Foster’s body was found would weekly these many years be the site of Republican ratf*ckers corpses piling up in the shrubbery.
I don’t get this oversight on her part.
You know, I’m 65 years old and the majority of my extended family and a far too high ration of my friends and associates have turned up dead over the years.
It’s mysterious. I can’t explain it, but there must be a common thread because here I am and they are not.
It should be looked into.
While I’m wasting my time before I take advantage of this beautiful Fall day and go on a stress-free hike in the foothills west of Denver, one udda ting over heah.
A few weeks back, Marty, and I’m sure it was mere entertaining eye-poking on his part and he really didn’t mean it, threw in the off-handed anti-Clinton meme in a comment regarding the dozens (more?) of Clinton associates involved in their “scandals” who have “mysteriously”, and under “suspicious circumstances” died in one way or another, a la (maybe it was Allah) Vince Foster, which we’re going to hear more about from Marty’s mortal enemy, Donald Trump in the coming wonderful weeks in these closing days of the Republic, not that the stock market won’t soar even if the Republic ceases to exist, it being the Republic.
My question is this: If I were Lady MacBeth, otherwise know as Hillary Clinton, why would I waste time and worry taking out so many of these characters, friends of mine, by making their beheadings look like a simple case of prostate cancer, for example, and yet not one of her really mortal enemies … I’m talking David Bossie, Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, Sean Hannity, the entire staff of Judicial Watch, and any gargantuan number of right wing filth … looks any the worse for wear after 30 years of gunning for her. In fact, they are walking around in rude good health, telling the same lies they always have and she can’t find a way to shut them up for good, maybe by having one of her many killers insert a needle mounted on the tip of an umbrella into their thighs while they wait for the light to change, or draining the brake fluid from their cars on a rain-swept night, or maybe arranging for their lifeboat-less cruise ships to run aground, founder, and sink in flames as they meet in the ship’s grand ballroom to plot her demise and the ruination of the country.
Why this incompetence on her part, for someone so ruthless as we are led to believe? Why this nearly 100% kill rate among her associates, but not one of her enemies or their horrific children has a scratch on them after all these decades.
She’s killed all the wrong people.
You know what is mysterious. That THEY are still among the living. I mean, what is Huma Abedin doing with all her time.
Look, if I was working for Hillary behind the scenes in some lethal capacity, that little park where Vince Foster’s body was found would weekly these many years be the site of Republican ratf*ckers corpses piling up in the shrubbery.
I don’t get this oversight on her part.
You know, I’m 65 years old and the majority of my extended family and a far too high ration of my friends and associates have turned up dead over the years.
It’s mysterious. I can’t explain it, but there must be a common thread because here I am and they are not.
It should be looked into.
While I’m wasting my time before I take advantage of this beautiful Fall day and go on a stress-free hike in the foothills west of Denver, one udda ting over heah.
A few weeks back, Marty, and I’m sure it was mere entertaining eye-poking on his part and he really didn’t mean it, threw in the off-handed anti-Clinton meme in a comment regarding the dozens (more?) of Clinton associates involved in their “scandals” who have “mysteriously”, and under “suspicious circumstances” died in one way or another, a la (maybe it was Allah) Vince Foster, which we’re going to hear more about from Marty’s mortal enemy, Donald Trump in the coming wonderful weeks in these closing days of the Republic, not that the stock market won’t soar even if the Republic ceases to exist, it being the Republic.
My question is this: If I were Lady MacBeth, otherwise know as Hillary Clinton, why would I waste time and worry taking out so many of these characters, friends of mine, by making their beheadings look like a simple case of prostate cancer, for example, and yet not one of her really mortal enemies … I’m talking David Bossie, Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, Sean Hannity, the entire staff of Judicial Watch, and any gargantuan number of right wing filth … looks any the worse for wear after 30 years of gunning for her. In fact, they are walking around in rude good health, telling the same lies they always have and she can’t find a way to shut them up for good, maybe by having one of her many killers insert a needle mounted on the tip of an umbrella into their thighs while they wait for the light to change, or draining the brake fluid from their cars on a rain-swept night, or maybe arranging for their lifeboat-less cruise ships to run aground, founder, and sink in flames as they meet in the ship’s grand ballroom to plot her demise and the ruination of the country.
Why this incompetence on her part, for someone so ruthless as we are led to believe? Why this nearly 100% kill rate among her associates, but not one of her enemies or their horrific children has a scratch on them after all these decades.
She’s killed all the wrong people.
You know what is mysterious. That THEY are still among the living. I mean, what is Huma Abedin doing with all her time.
Look, if I was working for Hillary behind the scenes in some lethal capacity, that little park where Vince Foster’s body was found would weekly these many years be the site of Republican ratf*ckers corpses piling up in the shrubbery.
I don’t get this oversight on her part.
You know, I’m 65 years old and the majority of my extended family and a far too high ration of my friends and associates have turned up dead over the years.
It’s mysterious. I can’t explain it, but there must be a common thread because here I am and they are not.
It should be looked into.
Count, that 11:33 rant was not only epic but substantive. Which you generally reserve for special occasions.
Brilliant. What else can one say?
Count, that 11:33 rant was not only epic but substantive. Which you generally reserve for special occasions.
Brilliant. What else can one say?
Count, that 11:33 rant was not only epic but substantive. Which you generally reserve for special occasions.
Brilliant. What else can one say?
Breitbart was left off of Count’s “Clinton Death Talley”. WHY??1??
Breitbart was left off of Count’s “Clinton Death Talley”. WHY??1??
Breitbart was left off of Count’s “Clinton Death Talley”. WHY??1??
Even I have my price.
Even I have my price.
Even I have my price.
The Count in epic and vintage form – it’s a glorious sight to see.
Also, what Tony P said about Trump and his supporters not only needing to be defeated, but needing to be seen to be defeated big league (or even bigly).
Hallelujah brothers! (and sister)
The Count in epic and vintage form – it’s a glorious sight to see.
Also, what Tony P said about Trump and his supporters not only needing to be defeated, but needing to be seen to be defeated big league (or even bigly).
Hallelujah brothers! (and sister)
The Count in epic and vintage form – it’s a glorious sight to see.
Also, what Tony P said about Trump and his supporters not only needing to be defeated, but needing to be seen to be defeated big league (or even bigly).
Hallelujah brothers! (and sister)
claps and cheers for the Count.
claps and cheers for the Count.
claps and cheers for the Count.
Hartmut, what a pleasure it is to find another KQ VII fan. It was a big favorite at our house.
Another cheer for the Count. On the subject of Gary Johnson’s honesty, today I ran across this story from Gary Johnson’s time as governor of New Mexico, a bogus tale of an escape tunnel from a prison. It’s instructive.
Hartmut, what a pleasure it is to find another KQ VII fan. It was a big favorite at our house.
Another cheer for the Count. On the subject of Gary Johnson’s honesty, today I ran across this story from Gary Johnson’s time as governor of New Mexico, a bogus tale of an escape tunnel from a prison. It’s instructive.
Hartmut, what a pleasure it is to find another KQ VII fan. It was a big favorite at our house.
Another cheer for the Count. On the subject of Gary Johnson’s honesty, today I ran across this story from Gary Johnson’s time as governor of New Mexico, a bogus tale of an escape tunnel from a prison. It’s instructive.
ral,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/the-zen-of-gary-johnson/237706/
A completely different view of the prison tunnel story.
ral,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/the-zen-of-gary-johnson/237706/
A completely different view of the prison tunnel story.
ral,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/the-zen-of-gary-johnson/237706/
A completely different view of the prison tunnel story.
A link on how coverage of Syria is manipulated in all the old familiar ways
http://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria
A link on how coverage of Syria is manipulated in all the old familiar ways
http://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria
A link on how coverage of Syria is manipulated in all the old familiar ways
http://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria
And yes, Max is Sydney’s son. I read Max’s book on the far right tilt in Israel. I have his older book on rightwing Republican loonies, but haven’t read it yet.
And yes, Max is Sydney’s son. I read Max’s book on the far right tilt in Israel. I have his older book on rightwing Republican loonies, but haven’t read it yet.
And yes, Max is Sydney’s son. I read Max’s book on the far right tilt in Israel. I have his older book on rightwing Republican loonies, but haven’t read it yet.
It’s interesting how quickly some of you flip from symbolism in voting tallies outside of win/lose is naive and meaningless when it comes to third-party voting, but suddenly it becomes the most important thing when it comes to voting margins between major-party candidates.
I’d point out that increasing the size of the number after Clinton’s name is not an unambiguous repudiation of Trump. The only clear repudiation is reducing the number after Trump’s name. Which unfortunately means dialogue with right-wing nose-holders instead of the easier, more satisfying solution of standing on the ramparts and throwing invective at broadly-painted acceptable targets…
It’s interesting how quickly some of you flip from symbolism in voting tallies outside of win/lose is naive and meaningless when it comes to third-party voting, but suddenly it becomes the most important thing when it comes to voting margins between major-party candidates.
I’d point out that increasing the size of the number after Clinton’s name is not an unambiguous repudiation of Trump. The only clear repudiation is reducing the number after Trump’s name. Which unfortunately means dialogue with right-wing nose-holders instead of the easier, more satisfying solution of standing on the ramparts and throwing invective at broadly-painted acceptable targets…
It’s interesting how quickly some of you flip from symbolism in voting tallies outside of win/lose is naive and meaningless when it comes to third-party voting, but suddenly it becomes the most important thing when it comes to voting margins between major-party candidates.
I’d point out that increasing the size of the number after Clinton’s name is not an unambiguous repudiation of Trump. The only clear repudiation is reducing the number after Trump’s name. Which unfortunately means dialogue with right-wing nose-holders instead of the easier, more satisfying solution of standing on the ramparts and throwing invective at broadly-painted acceptable targets…
Actually, I think there are two forms of repudiation:
1) Increase the difference between the numbers after Trump’s and Clinton’s names. Regardless of the specific numbers, or how many other votes went elsewhere.
2) Have Trump come in third in some states. This actually seems like it might be a real possibility in New Mexico, and perhaps have an outside chance in Alaska or Utah. It wouldn’t even matter if Johnson or Clinton won; if Trump finished third, it would be a serious repudiation.
But just having the number after Trump’s name go down? Not so much.
Did anyone see the fact that the major party candidates got fewer votes, due to Perot getting a lot, as a repudiation of the major party candidates? I sure don’t recall it that way.
Actually, I think there are two forms of repudiation:
1) Increase the difference between the numbers after Trump’s and Clinton’s names. Regardless of the specific numbers, or how many other votes went elsewhere.
2) Have Trump come in third in some states. This actually seems like it might be a real possibility in New Mexico, and perhaps have an outside chance in Alaska or Utah. It wouldn’t even matter if Johnson or Clinton won; if Trump finished third, it would be a serious repudiation.
But just having the number after Trump’s name go down? Not so much.
Did anyone see the fact that the major party candidates got fewer votes, due to Perot getting a lot, as a repudiation of the major party candidates? I sure don’t recall it that way.
Actually, I think there are two forms of repudiation:
1) Increase the difference between the numbers after Trump’s and Clinton’s names. Regardless of the specific numbers, or how many other votes went elsewhere.
2) Have Trump come in third in some states. This actually seems like it might be a real possibility in New Mexico, and perhaps have an outside chance in Alaska or Utah. It wouldn’t even matter if Johnson or Clinton won; if Trump finished third, it would be a serious repudiation.
But just having the number after Trump’s name go down? Not so much.
Did anyone see the fact that the major party candidates got fewer votes, due to Perot getting a lot, as a repudiation of the major party candidates? I sure don’t recall it that way.
But just having the number after Trump’s name go down? Not so much.
Moreso than how much the number after Clinton’s goes up.
I’d still take a smaller absolute number of votes for Trump as being symbolically more meaningful than a large number, but also a proportionally larger number of Clinton votes. A vote for Clinton is ambiguous and can be spun (i.e., were those sapient votes, or Donald Johnson votes?). A lack of votes for Trump? That’s not really subject to multiple interpretations.
But just having the number after Trump’s name go down? Not so much.
Moreso than how much the number after Clinton’s goes up.
I’d still take a smaller absolute number of votes for Trump as being symbolically more meaningful than a large number, but also a proportionally larger number of Clinton votes. A vote for Clinton is ambiguous and can be spun (i.e., were those sapient votes, or Donald Johnson votes?). A lack of votes for Trump? That’s not really subject to multiple interpretations.
But just having the number after Trump’s name go down? Not so much.
Moreso than how much the number after Clinton’s goes up.
I’d still take a smaller absolute number of votes for Trump as being symbolically more meaningful than a large number, but also a proportionally larger number of Clinton votes. A vote for Clinton is ambiguous and can be spun (i.e., were those sapient votes, or Donald Johnson votes?). A lack of votes for Trump? That’s not really subject to multiple interpretations.
Voting is a really lousy way to send messages or to do much of anything except get someone out of office or keep them out. In theory with 4 candidates one vote is worth two bits of information, but in practice, since nobody takes the two lesser candidates seriously, it’s only one bit and in my case my “1” for Clinton is really just a “0” for Trump and not an endorsement of Clinton, but she and her enthused supporters will add up all the votes for Clinton as though they were endorsements.
So I vote for the lesser evil and send messages by writing angry rants about the idiocy of the people I vote for. As a theory of change is lacks something. Probably success.
Voting is a really lousy way to send messages or to do much of anything except get someone out of office or keep them out. In theory with 4 candidates one vote is worth two bits of information, but in practice, since nobody takes the two lesser candidates seriously, it’s only one bit and in my case my “1” for Clinton is really just a “0” for Trump and not an endorsement of Clinton, but she and her enthused supporters will add up all the votes for Clinton as though they were endorsements.
So I vote for the lesser evil and send messages by writing angry rants about the idiocy of the people I vote for. As a theory of change is lacks something. Probably success.
Voting is a really lousy way to send messages or to do much of anything except get someone out of office or keep them out. In theory with 4 candidates one vote is worth two bits of information, but in practice, since nobody takes the two lesser candidates seriously, it’s only one bit and in my case my “1” for Clinton is really just a “0” for Trump and not an endorsement of Clinton, but she and her enthused supporters will add up all the votes for Clinton as though they were endorsements.
So I vote for the lesser evil and send messages by writing angry rants about the idiocy of the people I vote for. As a theory of change is lacks something. Probably success.
That was a funny cross-posting.
That was a funny cross-posting.
That was a funny cross-posting.
Hmmm. From over here, it looks extremely likely that even a huge Clinton majority would be interpreted solely as a rejection of Trump, rather than an enthusiastic endorsement of HRC. This is because almost every analysis starts by making the point that they are both astonishingly unpopular. Is it really so different in the US?
Hmmm. From over here, it looks extremely likely that even a huge Clinton majority would be interpreted solely as a rejection of Trump, rather than an enthusiastic endorsement of HRC. This is because almost every analysis starts by making the point that they are both astonishingly unpopular. Is it really so different in the US?
Hmmm. From over here, it looks extremely likely that even a huge Clinton majority would be interpreted solely as a rejection of Trump, rather than an enthusiastic endorsement of HRC. This is because almost every analysis starts by making the point that they are both astonishingly unpopular. Is it really so different in the US?
Is it really so different in the US?
nope. they tell the same story here.
Is it really so different in the US?
nope. they tell the same story here.
Is it really so different in the US?
nope. they tell the same story here.
Back to the 9/11 Saudi thing. FAIR has an interesting take. I wouldn’t have thought of this, but should have. The mainstream press is upset that the US might be exposed to foreign lawsuits regarding war crimes, but the mainstream thinks foreign lawsuits as allowed by TPP are just fine. I’m not sure if that’s true of everyone, but it sounds plausible.
And on Yemen, Daniel Larison responds to the NYT’s abysmal piece on why we pay so little attention–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-the-war-on-yemen-is-ignored/
I wrote something similar, but Larison’s piece is better.
Back to the 9/11 Saudi thing. FAIR has an interesting take. I wouldn’t have thought of this, but should have. The mainstream press is upset that the US might be exposed to foreign lawsuits regarding war crimes, but the mainstream thinks foreign lawsuits as allowed by TPP are just fine. I’m not sure if that’s true of everyone, but it sounds plausible.
And on Yemen, Daniel Larison responds to the NYT’s abysmal piece on why we pay so little attention–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-the-war-on-yemen-is-ignored/
I wrote something similar, but Larison’s piece is better.
Back to the 9/11 Saudi thing. FAIR has an interesting take. I wouldn’t have thought of this, but should have. The mainstream press is upset that the US might be exposed to foreign lawsuits regarding war crimes, but the mainstream thinks foreign lawsuits as allowed by TPP are just fine. I’m not sure if that’s true of everyone, but it sounds plausible.
And on Yemen, Daniel Larison responds to the NYT’s abysmal piece on why we pay so little attention–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-the-war-on-yemen-is-ignored/
I wrote something similar, but Larison’s piece is better.
Forgot the FAIR link–
http://fair.org/home/big-papers-want-foreign-companies-not-war-crime-victims-to-sue-us/
Forgot the FAIR link–
http://fair.org/home/big-papers-want-foreign-companies-not-war-crime-victims-to-sue-us/
Forgot the FAIR link–
http://fair.org/home/big-papers-want-foreign-companies-not-war-crime-victims-to-sue-us/
And new allegations of torture back in 2002, more vicious than what we’ve heard previously. Assuming it is true, there ought to be a way of suing people who do this sort of thing.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/03/us-ex-detainees-describe-unreported-cia-torture
And new allegations of torture back in 2002, more vicious than what we’ve heard previously. Assuming it is true, there ought to be a way of suing people who do this sort of thing.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/03/us-ex-detainees-describe-unreported-cia-torture
And new allegations of torture back in 2002, more vicious than what we’ve heard previously. Assuming it is true, there ought to be a way of suing people who do this sort of thing.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/03/us-ex-detainees-describe-unreported-cia-torture
Larison’s article says this
Is this true? I’ve not seen evidence for this. It seems that the Saudis, assisted by eight other countries, could probably have kept the war going all on its own.
As the the FAIR link, I did think about that issue, but from the other point of view. The thing about the trade agreement is that it establishes a network of relationships that have self-contained rules. The consenting countries all agree, and agreement is reciprocal and contractual. All signatories give up rights in order to gain rights. Our Constitution gives the power to the executive to negotiate a treaty, with consent from the Senate. In other words, there’s substantial government buy-in to further the policy.
There is no diplomacy going on with regard to the 9/11 Saudi Arabia lawsuit legislation. It’s just a unilateral act purporting to strip Saudi Arabia of its sovereign immunity with regard to its involvement in “terrorist” acts that have to be proved in court, rather than by traditional means – a State Department declaration of a nation as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”. Enforcement of a judgment might require the U.S. government to seize Saudi assets that it finds in the US (which obviously has economic as well as diplomatic repercussions).
The legislation is an exercise by Congress to take foreign policy from the executive department and hand it to the courts, whereas a trade treaty is a traditional diplomatic exercise. It’s a bad idea on many levels.
Larison’s article says this
Is this true? I’ve not seen evidence for this. It seems that the Saudis, assisted by eight other countries, could probably have kept the war going all on its own.
As the the FAIR link, I did think about that issue, but from the other point of view. The thing about the trade agreement is that it establishes a network of relationships that have self-contained rules. The consenting countries all agree, and agreement is reciprocal and contractual. All signatories give up rights in order to gain rights. Our Constitution gives the power to the executive to negotiate a treaty, with consent from the Senate. In other words, there’s substantial government buy-in to further the policy.
There is no diplomacy going on with regard to the 9/11 Saudi Arabia lawsuit legislation. It’s just a unilateral act purporting to strip Saudi Arabia of its sovereign immunity with regard to its involvement in “terrorist” acts that have to be proved in court, rather than by traditional means – a State Department declaration of a nation as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”. Enforcement of a judgment might require the U.S. government to seize Saudi assets that it finds in the US (which obviously has economic as well as diplomatic repercussions).
The legislation is an exercise by Congress to take foreign policy from the executive department and hand it to the courts, whereas a trade treaty is a traditional diplomatic exercise. It’s a bad idea on many levels.
Larison’s article says this
Is this true? I’ve not seen evidence for this. It seems that the Saudis, assisted by eight other countries, could probably have kept the war going all on its own.
As the the FAIR link, I did think about that issue, but from the other point of view. The thing about the trade agreement is that it establishes a network of relationships that have self-contained rules. The consenting countries all agree, and agreement is reciprocal and contractual. All signatories give up rights in order to gain rights. Our Constitution gives the power to the executive to negotiate a treaty, with consent from the Senate. In other words, there’s substantial government buy-in to further the policy.
There is no diplomacy going on with regard to the 9/11 Saudi Arabia lawsuit legislation. It’s just a unilateral act purporting to strip Saudi Arabia of its sovereign immunity with regard to its involvement in “terrorist” acts that have to be proved in court, rather than by traditional means – a State Department declaration of a nation as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”. Enforcement of a judgment might require the U.S. government to seize Saudi assets that it finds in the US (which obviously has economic as well as diplomatic repercussions).
The legislation is an exercise by Congress to take foreign policy from the executive department and hand it to the courts, whereas a trade treaty is a traditional diplomatic exercise. It’s a bad idea on many levels.
i hit this sentence in Larison’s piece:
Is the Syrian conflict more relevant to U.S. interests than Yemen’s? Not really,..
… and then i stopped, and read it again. and then i searched for “ISIS”, “ISIL”, “daesh”, “Islamic”, etc.. upon finding none of them in Larison’s text, i decided there must be something fishy going on – something which i wanted no part of.
i hit this sentence in Larison’s piece:
Is the Syrian conflict more relevant to U.S. interests than Yemen’s? Not really,..
… and then i stopped, and read it again. and then i searched for “ISIS”, “ISIL”, “daesh”, “Islamic”, etc.. upon finding none of them in Larison’s text, i decided there must be something fishy going on – something which i wanted no part of.
i hit this sentence in Larison’s piece:
Is the Syrian conflict more relevant to U.S. interests than Yemen’s? Not really,..
… and then i stopped, and read it again. and then i searched for “ISIS”, “ISIL”, “daesh”, “Islamic”, etc.. upon finding none of them in Larison’s text, i decided there must be something fishy going on – something which i wanted no part of.
new allegations of torture back in 2002, more vicious than what we’ve heard previously.
I too believe that we need to compensate victims of torture at the hands of the U.S. government. We can do that under our own laws, and judges should not apply the state secrets doctrine to prevent it.
new allegations of torture back in 2002, more vicious than what we’ve heard previously.
I too believe that we need to compensate victims of torture at the hands of the U.S. government. We can do that under our own laws, and judges should not apply the state secrets doctrine to prevent it.
new allegations of torture back in 2002, more vicious than what we’ve heard previously.
I too believe that we need to compensate victims of torture at the hands of the U.S. government. We can do that under our own laws, and judges should not apply the state secrets doctrine to prevent it.
Voting is a really lousy way to send messages or to do much of anything except get someone out of office or keep them out.
I thoroughly agree, and this was the general consensus here until we shifted gears to the “message” that votes for Clinton were going to unambiguously send. Which was interesting.
Voting is a really lousy way to send messages or to do much of anything except get someone out of office or keep them out.
I thoroughly agree, and this was the general consensus here until we shifted gears to the “message” that votes for Clinton were going to unambiguously send. Which was interesting.
Voting is a really lousy way to send messages or to do much of anything except get someone out of office or keep them out.
I thoroughly agree, and this was the general consensus here until we shifted gears to the “message” that votes for Clinton were going to unambiguously send. Which was interesting.
Yes, cleek, you hit it on the nose. Larison is pro ISIS. The entire post is really a sneaky way to encourage us to support jihadists.
Actually, of course, that’s melodramatic nonsense. What you did was find an excuse for ignoring his entire post, none of which is about ISIS. To the extent he speaks about Syria it is in connection with our attempt at overthrowing Assad, an attempt which has led to five years of war, creating millions of refugees, all of which would be predictable to anyone who saw what other violent regime change attempts have led to.
But the piece wasn’t about that. It was about a fatuous article in the NYT that said there were no obvious villains in Yemen, while admitting that the Saudis bomb hospitals and are receiving our help.
Larison is suspicious of our military interventions in general and there is no need to accept his arguments on that. But to dismiss what he writes on Yemen because of some oh so mysterious dark motives that you want no part of makes no sense.
Yes, cleek, you hit it on the nose. Larison is pro ISIS. The entire post is really a sneaky way to encourage us to support jihadists.
Actually, of course, that’s melodramatic nonsense. What you did was find an excuse for ignoring his entire post, none of which is about ISIS. To the extent he speaks about Syria it is in connection with our attempt at overthrowing Assad, an attempt which has led to five years of war, creating millions of refugees, all of which would be predictable to anyone who saw what other violent regime change attempts have led to.
But the piece wasn’t about that. It was about a fatuous article in the NYT that said there were no obvious villains in Yemen, while admitting that the Saudis bomb hospitals and are receiving our help.
Larison is suspicious of our military interventions in general and there is no need to accept his arguments on that. But to dismiss what he writes on Yemen because of some oh so mysterious dark motives that you want no part of makes no sense.
Yes, cleek, you hit it on the nose. Larison is pro ISIS. The entire post is really a sneaky way to encourage us to support jihadists.
Actually, of course, that’s melodramatic nonsense. What you did was find an excuse for ignoring his entire post, none of which is about ISIS. To the extent he speaks about Syria it is in connection with our attempt at overthrowing Assad, an attempt which has led to five years of war, creating millions of refugees, all of which would be predictable to anyone who saw what other violent regime change attempts have led to.
But the piece wasn’t about that. It was about a fatuous article in the NYT that said there were no obvious villains in Yemen, while admitting that the Saudis bomb hospitals and are receiving our help.
Larison is suspicious of our military interventions in general and there is no need to accept his arguments on that. But to dismiss what he writes on Yemen because of some oh so mysterious dark motives that you want no part of makes no sense.
What you did was find an excuse for ignoring his entire post, none of which is about ISIS.
correct!
and i even gave you the reason why.
What you did was find an excuse for ignoring his entire post, none of which is about ISIS.
correct!
and i even gave you the reason why.
What you did was find an excuse for ignoring his entire post, none of which is about ISIS.
correct!
and i even gave you the reason why.
If you want to see Larison posts that involve ISIs, here is a list–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison-tags/isis/
In general it is as I said–he is anti-interventionist. He thinks there is no end to how many countries we will bomb in the name of fighting terrorism. He is doubtful it does any good or that it is a proper response to terror attacks within the US.
You can disagree with this and that’s fine. I’m not sure I agree with it. But then I think on the subject of our wars in the Middle East you have to read a lot of people with views one may not like, because nearly everyone has an ax to grind.
None of this has anything to do with his argument about why Yemen is largely ignored. It is ignored because we are partly responsible for the deaths and both Democrats and Republicans are to blame.
If you want to see Larison posts that involve ISIs, here is a list–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison-tags/isis/
In general it is as I said–he is anti-interventionist. He thinks there is no end to how many countries we will bomb in the name of fighting terrorism. He is doubtful it does any good or that it is a proper response to terror attacks within the US.
You can disagree with this and that’s fine. I’m not sure I agree with it. But then I think on the subject of our wars in the Middle East you have to read a lot of people with views one may not like, because nearly everyone has an ax to grind.
None of this has anything to do with his argument about why Yemen is largely ignored. It is ignored because we are partly responsible for the deaths and both Democrats and Republicans are to blame.
If you want to see Larison posts that involve ISIs, here is a list–
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison-tags/isis/
In general it is as I said–he is anti-interventionist. He thinks there is no end to how many countries we will bomb in the name of fighting terrorism. He is doubtful it does any good or that it is a proper response to terror attacks within the US.
You can disagree with this and that’s fine. I’m not sure I agree with it. But then I think on the subject of our wars in the Middle East you have to read a lot of people with views one may not like, because nearly everyone has an ax to grind.
None of this has anything to do with his argument about why Yemen is largely ignored. It is ignored because we are partly responsible for the deaths and both Democrats and Republicans are to blame.
On the Saudis, I am not a military expert so I don’t know how well they could run things on their own. I have read some derogatory comments about them, but don’t know enough. Of course none of this would justify our participation or the way the country as a whole looks the other way.
On the Saudis, I am not a military expert so I don’t know how well they could run things on their own. I have read some derogatory comments about them, but don’t know enough. Of course none of this would justify our participation or the way the country as a whole looks the other way.
On the Saudis, I am not a military expert so I don’t know how well they could run things on their own. I have read some derogatory comments about them, but don’t know enough. Of course none of this would justify our participation or the way the country as a whole looks the other way.
It was a bad reason, cleek. Hell, I remember someone mentioning Larison’s views on a completely unrelated topic and if true, I wouldn’t like them at all. But it wold be silly to ignore him on issues where he makes good arguments. Like Yemen.
It was a bad reason, cleek. Hell, I remember someone mentioning Larison’s views on a completely unrelated topic and if true, I wouldn’t like them at all. But it wold be silly to ignore him on issues where he makes good arguments. Like Yemen.
It was a bad reason, cleek. Hell, I remember someone mentioning Larison’s views on a completely unrelated topic and if true, I wouldn’t like them at all. But it wold be silly to ignore him on issues where he makes good arguments. Like Yemen.
i generally respect Larison’s FP writing – don’t always agree, but i at least get it. but the sentence+ i quoted is a puzzler.
he doesn’t have to approve of the war in Iraq/Syria to know what our interests are there: a unstable Iraq (which W created) gave us an unstable Syria and ISIS, and now we want to try to get that back into some kind of relatively stable situation, and to stamp out ISIS because they’re killing people all over the world.
Yemen is different.
i generally respect Larison’s FP writing – don’t always agree, but i at least get it. but the sentence+ i quoted is a puzzler.
he doesn’t have to approve of the war in Iraq/Syria to know what our interests are there: a unstable Iraq (which W created) gave us an unstable Syria and ISIS, and now we want to try to get that back into some kind of relatively stable situation, and to stamp out ISIS because they’re killing people all over the world.
Yemen is different.
i generally respect Larison’s FP writing – don’t always agree, but i at least get it. but the sentence+ i quoted is a puzzler.
he doesn’t have to approve of the war in Iraq/Syria to know what our interests are there: a unstable Iraq (which W created) gave us an unstable Syria and ISIS, and now we want to try to get that back into some kind of relatively stable situation, and to stamp out ISIS because they’re killing people all over the world.
Yemen is different.
Marty, thanks for the link.
Marty, thanks for the link.
Marty, thanks for the link.
Okay, cleek, that’s fair. I think, though, our Syria policy has been a contradictory mess. Fighting ISIS is separate from toppling Assad. Trying to do both assumes that we have the magical power to ensure that wonderful democracy supporting “moderate” rebels will come out on top, when there is absolutely nothing in our record tha shows any ability to do anything like that. The US may realize that, but wants a ceasefire when it can’t separate out the ” good” rebels from the Al Qaeda ones.
Okay, cleek, that’s fair. I think, though, our Syria policy has been a contradictory mess. Fighting ISIS is separate from toppling Assad. Trying to do both assumes that we have the magical power to ensure that wonderful democracy supporting “moderate” rebels will come out on top, when there is absolutely nothing in our record tha shows any ability to do anything like that. The US may realize that, but wants a ceasefire when it can’t separate out the ” good” rebels from the Al Qaeda ones.
Okay, cleek, that’s fair. I think, though, our Syria policy has been a contradictory mess. Fighting ISIS is separate from toppling Assad. Trying to do both assumes that we have the magical power to ensure that wonderful democracy supporting “moderate” rebels will come out on top, when there is absolutely nothing in our record tha shows any ability to do anything like that. The US may realize that, but wants a ceasefire when it can’t separate out the ” good” rebels from the Al Qaeda ones.
NV–I think the vote swapping idea is interesting and worth pursuing, but it’s maybe the sort of idea that needs to be planned years in advance and publicized like crazy if one wishes to send some sort of message or use it to strengthen third parties. I don’t really have a theory of how to make our politics better–the Republicans have gone crazy and the Democrats in my opinion aren’t as much better as they think they are, particularly not in foreign policy.
NV–I think the vote swapping idea is interesting and worth pursuing, but it’s maybe the sort of idea that needs to be planned years in advance and publicized like crazy if one wishes to send some sort of message or use it to strengthen third parties. I don’t really have a theory of how to make our politics better–the Republicans have gone crazy and the Democrats in my opinion aren’t as much better as they think they are, particularly not in foreign policy.
NV–I think the vote swapping idea is interesting and worth pursuing, but it’s maybe the sort of idea that needs to be planned years in advance and publicized like crazy if one wishes to send some sort of message or use it to strengthen third parties. I don’t really have a theory of how to make our politics better–the Republicans have gone crazy and the Democrats in my opinion aren’t as much better as they think they are, particularly not in foreign policy.
the Democrats in my opinion aren’t as much better as they think they are, particularly not in foreign policy.
But, Donald, your comments on foreign policy are towards “criticizing” with very little on what policies you would pursue. Do you have someone whose policy you admire? Not naysayers, because naysaying is incredibly easy. I would like you to own a policy.
Isolationism?
the Democrats in my opinion aren’t as much better as they think they are, particularly not in foreign policy.
But, Donald, your comments on foreign policy are towards “criticizing” with very little on what policies you would pursue. Do you have someone whose policy you admire? Not naysayers, because naysaying is incredibly easy. I would like you to own a policy.
Isolationism?
the Democrats in my opinion aren’t as much better as they think they are, particularly not in foreign policy.
But, Donald, your comments on foreign policy are towards “criticizing” with very little on what policies you would pursue. Do you have someone whose policy you admire? Not naysayers, because naysaying is incredibly easy. I would like you to own a policy.
Isolationism?
Much less military intervention, less weapons sales, don’t support the Saudis as they kill children or the Israelis either. Bombing Isis–I’m on the fence. No qualms about killing ISIS fanatics, but we might possibly be doing more harm than good with the civilians we also kill. But I don’t take a strong stand there. Probably no ideology is right all the time, not even anti-interventionism.
Your idea of isolationism would be funny if we weren’t talking about refraining from killing civilians. We can interact with the world without being accessories to mass murder. We could at least give it a shot and see if civilization collapses. Some Democrats and a few Republicans agree with me on Yemen.
Much less military intervention, less weapons sales, don’t support the Saudis as they kill children or the Israelis either. Bombing Isis–I’m on the fence. No qualms about killing ISIS fanatics, but we might possibly be doing more harm than good with the civilians we also kill. But I don’t take a strong stand there. Probably no ideology is right all the time, not even anti-interventionism.
Your idea of isolationism would be funny if we weren’t talking about refraining from killing civilians. We can interact with the world without being accessories to mass murder. We could at least give it a shot and see if civilization collapses. Some Democrats and a few Republicans agree with me on Yemen.
Much less military intervention, less weapons sales, don’t support the Saudis as they kill children or the Israelis either. Bombing Isis–I’m on the fence. No qualms about killing ISIS fanatics, but we might possibly be doing more harm than good with the civilians we also kill. But I don’t take a strong stand there. Probably no ideology is right all the time, not even anti-interventionism.
Your idea of isolationism would be funny if we weren’t talking about refraining from killing civilians. We can interact with the world without being accessories to mass murder. We could at least give it a shot and see if civilization collapses. Some Democrats and a few Republicans agree with me on Yemen.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
In fairness to the media, they publish enough so you can tell the storyline they are peddling of US supported good guys consists in large part of rebels allied with Al Qaeda.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
In fairness to the media, they publish enough so you can tell the storyline they are peddling of US supported good guys consists in large part of rebels allied with Al Qaeda.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
In fairness to the media, they publish enough so you can tell the storyline they are peddling of US supported good guys consists in large part of rebels allied with Al Qaeda.
Btw, I don’t know if Kinzer actually thinks we should be cheering for the Iranian-Russian- Syrian side, but he’s right that most of the coverage in the press reads more like propaganda than an attempt at describing a multi- sided civil war with civilians who are terrified by a possible victory by one of the other sides. Max Blumenthal said it better in the link upthread– in the US, to get a full picture you have to read outside the mainstream sources, including some that are slanted in the opposite nasty direction. Right now it feels like 2002, with the extra fun of an exceptionally stupid political campaign with the most narcissistic candidate ever vs someone whose instincts are similar to the Bush Administration’s.
Btw, I don’t know if Kinzer actually thinks we should be cheering for the Iranian-Russian- Syrian side, but he’s right that most of the coverage in the press reads more like propaganda than an attempt at describing a multi- sided civil war with civilians who are terrified by a possible victory by one of the other sides. Max Blumenthal said it better in the link upthread– in the US, to get a full picture you have to read outside the mainstream sources, including some that are slanted in the opposite nasty direction. Right now it feels like 2002, with the extra fun of an exceptionally stupid political campaign with the most narcissistic candidate ever vs someone whose instincts are similar to the Bush Administration’s.
Btw, I don’t know if Kinzer actually thinks we should be cheering for the Iranian-Russian- Syrian side, but he’s right that most of the coverage in the press reads more like propaganda than an attempt at describing a multi- sided civil war with civilians who are terrified by a possible victory by one of the other sides. Max Blumenthal said it better in the link upthread– in the US, to get a full picture you have to read outside the mainstream sources, including some that are slanted in the opposite nasty direction. Right now it feels like 2002, with the extra fun of an exceptionally stupid political campaign with the most narcissistic candidate ever vs someone whose instincts are similar to the Bush Administration’s.
Earnest. Forthright.
As in: his bullshit is delivered in an earnest, forthright fashion.
Marty, the guy works in a medium of wishful thinking. Honesty has no meaning when applied to that. You can be absolutely truthful in stating the way you wish things were, but that works on a plane that doesn’t intersect veracity at all.
Trump seems honest, yes. But when you check what he says, you find that its relationship with the truth is a long-distance, pen-pal-via-pony-express kind of affair.
Earnest. Forthright.
As in: his bullshit is delivered in an earnest, forthright fashion.
Marty, the guy works in a medium of wishful thinking. Honesty has no meaning when applied to that. You can be absolutely truthful in stating the way you wish things were, but that works on a plane that doesn’t intersect veracity at all.
Trump seems honest, yes. But when you check what he says, you find that its relationship with the truth is a long-distance, pen-pal-via-pony-express kind of affair.
Earnest. Forthright.
As in: his bullshit is delivered in an earnest, forthright fashion.
Marty, the guy works in a medium of wishful thinking. Honesty has no meaning when applied to that. You can be absolutely truthful in stating the way you wish things were, but that works on a plane that doesn’t intersect veracity at all.
Trump seems honest, yes. But when you check what he says, you find that its relationship with the truth is a long-distance, pen-pal-via-pony-express kind of affair.
Slart,
I suppose that wishful thinking must be a sin these days.
I do consider that doing away with the war on drugs, reducing the population of our prisons, is what I wish.
I also want someone at the bully pulpit that can hold consistent views on constitutional rights, agreeing with both the far left on abortion and the far right on gun control, (neither of which I completely agree with but both being on the correct side of I don’t care).
I like someone who isn’t going to throw the baby out with the bathwater on trade, TPP was good for everyone until it was bad. From the gold standard to the worst thing ever written.
Immigration I suppose is fine until someone comes along and says we should just do background checks and let people in.
Reducing the size of the parts of government focused on telling us how to live as individuals, while supporting massive investment in infrastructure and job creation is pretty good wish.
Means testing SS and raising the retirement age to 70, well I agree with the first half of that.
If all that is wishful thinking, I’m wishing. I ain’t getting much of that from anyone else, and not nearly all of it.
I haven’t seen anything that would make me question his honesty on those being the values and positions he will support. He has been pretty consistent.
So I don’t quite understand how, even if accomplishing any of those things is wishful thinking, that makes them bullshit or him a liar.
Slart,
I suppose that wishful thinking must be a sin these days.
I do consider that doing away with the war on drugs, reducing the population of our prisons, is what I wish.
I also want someone at the bully pulpit that can hold consistent views on constitutional rights, agreeing with both the far left on abortion and the far right on gun control, (neither of which I completely agree with but both being on the correct side of I don’t care).
I like someone who isn’t going to throw the baby out with the bathwater on trade, TPP was good for everyone until it was bad. From the gold standard to the worst thing ever written.
Immigration I suppose is fine until someone comes along and says we should just do background checks and let people in.
Reducing the size of the parts of government focused on telling us how to live as individuals, while supporting massive investment in infrastructure and job creation is pretty good wish.
Means testing SS and raising the retirement age to 70, well I agree with the first half of that.
If all that is wishful thinking, I’m wishing. I ain’t getting much of that from anyone else, and not nearly all of it.
I haven’t seen anything that would make me question his honesty on those being the values and positions he will support. He has been pretty consistent.
So I don’t quite understand how, even if accomplishing any of those things is wishful thinking, that makes them bullshit or him a liar.
Slart,
I suppose that wishful thinking must be a sin these days.
I do consider that doing away with the war on drugs, reducing the population of our prisons, is what I wish.
I also want someone at the bully pulpit that can hold consistent views on constitutional rights, agreeing with both the far left on abortion and the far right on gun control, (neither of which I completely agree with but both being on the correct side of I don’t care).
I like someone who isn’t going to throw the baby out with the bathwater on trade, TPP was good for everyone until it was bad. From the gold standard to the worst thing ever written.
Immigration I suppose is fine until someone comes along and says we should just do background checks and let people in.
Reducing the size of the parts of government focused on telling us how to live as individuals, while supporting massive investment in infrastructure and job creation is pretty good wish.
Means testing SS and raising the retirement age to 70, well I agree with the first half of that.
If all that is wishful thinking, I’m wishing. I ain’t getting much of that from anyone else, and not nearly all of it.
I haven’t seen anything that would make me question his honesty on those being the values and positions he will support. He has been pretty consistent.
So I don’t quite understand how, even if accomplishing any of those things is wishful thinking, that makes them bullshit or him a liar.
Part 2 of Max Blumenthal’s series on Syria and the people pushing for intervention. One of his points is that for the most part, you have two competing propaganda pushers–if you want to find out info about things the MSM and the US government don’t want to talk about, most of the time you end up reading people on the far left who are pro-Assad. It would be nice not to be in this sort of media environment.
This stuff matters. If Hillary wins we might be hearing more about this. We might be hearing more before. If Trump wins, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what we will be hearing about, but it’ll be huge.
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-white-helmets-became-international-heroes-while-pushing-us-military
Part 2 of Max Blumenthal’s series on Syria and the people pushing for intervention. One of his points is that for the most part, you have two competing propaganda pushers–if you want to find out info about things the MSM and the US government don’t want to talk about, most of the time you end up reading people on the far left who are pro-Assad. It would be nice not to be in this sort of media environment.
This stuff matters. If Hillary wins we might be hearing more about this. We might be hearing more before. If Trump wins, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what we will be hearing about, but it’ll be huge.
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-white-helmets-became-international-heroes-while-pushing-us-military
Part 2 of Max Blumenthal’s series on Syria and the people pushing for intervention. One of his points is that for the most part, you have two competing propaganda pushers–if you want to find out info about things the MSM and the US government don’t want to talk about, most of the time you end up reading people on the far left who are pro-Assad. It would be nice not to be in this sort of media environment.
This stuff matters. If Hillary wins we might be hearing more about this. We might be hearing more before. If Trump wins, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what we will be hearing about, but it’ll be huge.
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-white-helmets-became-international-heroes-while-pushing-us-military
Marty, just for clarity’s sake, are you talking about Trump or about Johnson? I had thought the latter, but Slartibartfast referred specifically to DT, so I’m confused.
Marty, just for clarity’s sake, are you talking about Trump or about Johnson? I had thought the latter, but Slartibartfast referred specifically to DT, so I’m confused.
Marty, just for clarity’s sake, are you talking about Trump or about Johnson? I had thought the latter, but Slartibartfast referred specifically to DT, so I’m confused.
It’s the honest ones you’ve got to watch.
It’s the honest ones you’ve got to watch.
It’s the honest ones you’ve got to watch.
Jim, Johnson, Slart started with Johnson and then went on to Trump. Unless I misread it.
Jim, Johnson, Slart started with Johnson and then went on to Trump. Unless I misread it.
Jim, Johnson, Slart started with Johnson and then went on to Trump. Unless I misread it.
My favorite paragraph from the Counts link in his epic rant:
We aren’t sure, in fact, in great detail up above we have shown that no statistic we are using is at all reliable, that legalizing marijuana, or even marijuana period, is responsible for the increase in marijuana related anything. It could very well be just how we decided to count.
My favorite paragraph from the Counts link in his epic rant:
We aren’t sure, in fact, in great detail up above we have shown that no statistic we are using is at all reliable, that legalizing marijuana, or even marijuana period, is responsible for the increase in marijuana related anything. It could very well be just how we decided to count.
My favorite paragraph from the Counts link in his epic rant:
We aren’t sure, in fact, in great detail up above we have shown that no statistic we are using is at all reliable, that legalizing marijuana, or even marijuana period, is responsible for the increase in marijuana related anything. It could very well be just how we decided to count.
If we are going to evaluate the impact of marijuana usage, wouldn’t we need an easy and quick (and accurate!) test, like the breath-a-lizer for alcohol, to use at traffic accidents, etc.? Because otherwise we are just trying to work with correlations between medical statistics and sales statistics.
Is there such technology at all? And if so, how is the rollout coming along in the states where marijuana has been legalized?
If we are going to evaluate the impact of marijuana usage, wouldn’t we need an easy and quick (and accurate!) test, like the breath-a-lizer for alcohol, to use at traffic accidents, etc.? Because otherwise we are just trying to work with correlations between medical statistics and sales statistics.
Is there such technology at all? And if so, how is the rollout coming along in the states where marijuana has been legalized?
If we are going to evaluate the impact of marijuana usage, wouldn’t we need an easy and quick (and accurate!) test, like the breath-a-lizer for alcohol, to use at traffic accidents, etc.? Because otherwise we are just trying to work with correlations between medical statistics and sales statistics.
Is there such technology at all? And if so, how is the rollout coming along in the states where marijuana has been legalized?
I noticed that too.
I guess what we want in a leader is a guy who can make any old shit up from the seat of his pants to fill in until the rest of us determine the facts.
When I received a DWAI a few years back and suggested to the officer and the Court that a certain overage in my alcohol servings actually, if you think about it, causes me to be a more nimble, courageous driver who can steer himself out of trouble more often than not, thereby enhancing public safety, they didn’t look at me and say “You know, we could use a mind like yours in the White House. Have you thought of running?”
Besides, by the time the experts, those college boys, nail down the facts about the relationship of THC in the bloodstream and traffic safety, hospital visits, and school suspensions, the sun will have expanded and incinerated the Earth, so what’s the difference?
I suspect some of those hospital visits might be stoned people looking for a pot dispensary or a bar and instead accidentally stumbling into a hospital emergency room and asking the admittance desk “I’ll have what he’s having.”
I noticed that too.
I guess what we want in a leader is a guy who can make any old shit up from the seat of his pants to fill in until the rest of us determine the facts.
When I received a DWAI a few years back and suggested to the officer and the Court that a certain overage in my alcohol servings actually, if you think about it, causes me to be a more nimble, courageous driver who can steer himself out of trouble more often than not, thereby enhancing public safety, they didn’t look at me and say “You know, we could use a mind like yours in the White House. Have you thought of running?”
Besides, by the time the experts, those college boys, nail down the facts about the relationship of THC in the bloodstream and traffic safety, hospital visits, and school suspensions, the sun will have expanded and incinerated the Earth, so what’s the difference?
I suspect some of those hospital visits might be stoned people looking for a pot dispensary or a bar and instead accidentally stumbling into a hospital emergency room and asking the admittance desk “I’ll have what he’s having.”
I noticed that too.
I guess what we want in a leader is a guy who can make any old shit up from the seat of his pants to fill in until the rest of us determine the facts.
When I received a DWAI a few years back and suggested to the officer and the Court that a certain overage in my alcohol servings actually, if you think about it, causes me to be a more nimble, courageous driver who can steer himself out of trouble more often than not, thereby enhancing public safety, they didn’t look at me and say “You know, we could use a mind like yours in the White House. Have you thought of running?”
Besides, by the time the experts, those college boys, nail down the facts about the relationship of THC in the bloodstream and traffic safety, hospital visits, and school suspensions, the sun will have expanded and incinerated the Earth, so what’s the difference?
I suspect some of those hospital visits might be stoned people looking for a pot dispensary or a bar and instead accidentally stumbling into a hospital emergency room and asking the admittance desk “I’ll have what he’s having.”
Is there such technology at all?
i don’t think there is.
blood test is the best they can do right now.
Is there such technology at all?
i don’t think there is.
blood test is the best they can do right now.
Is there such technology at all?
i don’t think there is.
blood test is the best they can do right now.
Apparently, the problem is whatever the substance is that remains in the bloodstream after using cannibis has a much longer detectable half-life than does blood alcohol content.
The question is whether cannibis used several days or the week before can be proven to impair a driver’s judgement, as opposed to toking up and immediately going for a joyride and taking out a pedestrian.
That doesn’t explain of course the effect of long-term marijuana use on knowing what an “Aleppo” is.
Apparently, the problem is whatever the substance is that remains in the bloodstream after using cannibis has a much longer detectable half-life than does blood alcohol content.
The question is whether cannibis used several days or the week before can be proven to impair a driver’s judgement, as opposed to toking up and immediately going for a joyride and taking out a pedestrian.
That doesn’t explain of course the effect of long-term marijuana use on knowing what an “Aleppo” is.
Apparently, the problem is whatever the substance is that remains in the bloodstream after using cannibis has a much longer detectable half-life than does blood alcohol content.
The question is whether cannibis used several days or the week before can be proven to impair a driver’s judgement, as opposed to toking up and immediately going for a joyride and taking out a pedestrian.
That doesn’t explain of course the effect of long-term marijuana use on knowing what an “Aleppo” is.
an Aleppo is a tasty mildy-spicy chili pepper which i love to put on Totino’s pizzas, when the munchies come calling. it’s named after something which i can’t quite remember.
an Aleppo is a tasty mildy-spicy chili pepper which i love to put on Totino’s pizzas, when the munchies come calling. it’s named after something which i can’t quite remember.
an Aleppo is a tasty mildy-spicy chili pepper which i love to put on Totino’s pizzas, when the munchies come calling. it’s named after something which i can’t quite remember.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gary-johnson-foreign-policy-knowledge-puts-military-in-harms-way
See, this does make a certain amount of good sense, kind of in the same way John and Yoko’s idea back in the day that if everyone in the world would stay in bed for a week, war would stop for a week.
I was on board with that, though Lennon did almost leap from under the sheets in his jammies and plant his fist on Al Capp’s kisser for the latter’s insistence on being such an insulting prong (watch the tapes; you can see a look on Lennon’s face for a fleeting moment that he wanted to kick Capp’s rear end and then hop back into bed and resume the peace-in)
So, following Johnson’s logic, which has a certain aroma of weasel about it, one way to stop foreign entanglements involving our troops is to stop teaching geography, the names of world leaders, and any sort of cartographic skills in our school systems, which would cause Americans to grow up even more ignorant than they already are about this world they live in and be President and not be able to send troops anywhere because no one would know where “anywhere” is.
It’s a well-known fact that had map-reading and even maps been prohibited in 1861, Lincoln would have asked his military adjutants where that dump Fort Sumter was, and his people would have looked at each other and shrugged their shoulders and said “Search us” and we could have avoided the entire Civil War and to this day Donald Trump could have darkies serving him mint juleps with very low overhead.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gary-johnson-foreign-policy-knowledge-puts-military-in-harms-way
See, this does make a certain amount of good sense, kind of in the same way John and Yoko’s idea back in the day that if everyone in the world would stay in bed for a week, war would stop for a week.
I was on board with that, though Lennon did almost leap from under the sheets in his jammies and plant his fist on Al Capp’s kisser for the latter’s insistence on being such an insulting prong (watch the tapes; you can see a look on Lennon’s face for a fleeting moment that he wanted to kick Capp’s rear end and then hop back into bed and resume the peace-in)
So, following Johnson’s logic, which has a certain aroma of weasel about it, one way to stop foreign entanglements involving our troops is to stop teaching geography, the names of world leaders, and any sort of cartographic skills in our school systems, which would cause Americans to grow up even more ignorant than they already are about this world they live in and be President and not be able to send troops anywhere because no one would know where “anywhere” is.
It’s a well-known fact that had map-reading and even maps been prohibited in 1861, Lincoln would have asked his military adjutants where that dump Fort Sumter was, and his people would have looked at each other and shrugged their shoulders and said “Search us” and we could have avoided the entire Civil War and to this day Donald Trump could have darkies serving him mint juleps with very low overhead.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gary-johnson-foreign-policy-knowledge-puts-military-in-harms-way
See, this does make a certain amount of good sense, kind of in the same way John and Yoko’s idea back in the day that if everyone in the world would stay in bed for a week, war would stop for a week.
I was on board with that, though Lennon did almost leap from under the sheets in his jammies and plant his fist on Al Capp’s kisser for the latter’s insistence on being such an insulting prong (watch the tapes; you can see a look on Lennon’s face for a fleeting moment that he wanted to kick Capp’s rear end and then hop back into bed and resume the peace-in)
So, following Johnson’s logic, which has a certain aroma of weasel about it, one way to stop foreign entanglements involving our troops is to stop teaching geography, the names of world leaders, and any sort of cartographic skills in our school systems, which would cause Americans to grow up even more ignorant than they already are about this world they live in and be President and not be able to send troops anywhere because no one would know where “anywhere” is.
It’s a well-known fact that had map-reading and even maps been prohibited in 1861, Lincoln would have asked his military adjutants where that dump Fort Sumter was, and his people would have looked at each other and shrugged their shoulders and said “Search us” and we could have avoided the entire Civil War and to this day Donald Trump could have darkies serving him mint juleps with very low overhead.
I will add that George W. Bush’s inability to find Iraq on a map did not stop him from finding the place and making hash out of it.
I will add that George W. Bush’s inability to find Iraq on a map did not stop him from finding the place and making hash out of it.
I will add that George W. Bush’s inability to find Iraq on a map did not stop him from finding the place and making hash out of it.
Isn’t Aleppo near Bayreuth where the IRA blew up the marinated barracks when Jiminy Cartel was president?
Isn’t Aleppo near Bayreuth where the IRA blew up the marinated barracks when Jiminy Cartel was president?
Isn’t Aleppo near Bayreuth where the IRA blew up the marinated barracks when Jiminy Cartel was president?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-1993-white-house-correspondents-dinner
Yes, but if Bill Clinton has been seated at the same table, along with Trump, the runway model would have left early with Bill, leaving the rude, crashingly boorish Trump to spend the rest of the evening showing Rudy Giuliani the ins and outs of cumberbund maintenance back in their room.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-1993-white-house-correspondents-dinner
Yes, but if Bill Clinton has been seated at the same table, along with Trump, the runway model would have left early with Bill, leaving the rude, crashingly boorish Trump to spend the rest of the evening showing Rudy Giuliani the ins and outs of cumberbund maintenance back in their room.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-1993-white-house-correspondents-dinner
Yes, but if Bill Clinton has been seated at the same table, along with Trump, the runway model would have left early with Bill, leaving the rude, crashingly boorish Trump to spend the rest of the evening showing Rudy Giuliani the ins and outs of cumberbund maintenance back in their room.
Our Syria policy might improve if it were run by potheads with no knowledge of the place. There are other reasons for not voting for Gary Johnson that seem better to me.
Our Syria policy might improve if it were run by potheads with no knowledge of the place. There are other reasons for not voting for Gary Johnson that seem better to me.
Our Syria policy might improve if it were run by potheads with no knowledge of the place. There are other reasons for not voting for Gary Johnson that seem better to me.
Me too. His non-interventionism appeals to me in many ways that the rest of his platform fails miserably to do.
But could he at least make an effort to appear half-assed knowledgeable about the subject.
I see no way to improve anything in Syria, either by doing less or doing more, or doing nothing.
Too many blood feuds. Too many belligerents with loyalties that shift by the minute.
We have reached a “well, any idiot could run this show better than those guys” moment in this country.
Trouble is, we have no shortage of idiots who might try.
Me too. His non-interventionism appeals to me in many ways that the rest of his platform fails miserably to do.
But could he at least make an effort to appear half-assed knowledgeable about the subject.
I see no way to improve anything in Syria, either by doing less or doing more, or doing nothing.
Too many blood feuds. Too many belligerents with loyalties that shift by the minute.
We have reached a “well, any idiot could run this show better than those guys” moment in this country.
Trouble is, we have no shortage of idiots who might try.
Me too. His non-interventionism appeals to me in many ways that the rest of his platform fails miserably to do.
But could he at least make an effort to appear half-assed knowledgeable about the subject.
I see no way to improve anything in Syria, either by doing less or doing more, or doing nothing.
Too many blood feuds. Too many belligerents with loyalties that shift by the minute.
We have reached a “well, any idiot could run this show better than those guys” moment in this country.
Trouble is, we have no shortage of idiots who might try.
“Slarti started with Johnson”
Slarti screwed up and thought you were talking about Trump, so Slarti will go hide for a while and be quiet.
Sorry for the interruption.
“Slarti started with Johnson”
Slarti screwed up and thought you were talking about Trump, so Slarti will go hide for a while and be quiet.
Sorry for the interruption.
“Slarti started with Johnson”
Slarti screwed up and thought you were talking about Trump, so Slarti will go hide for a while and be quiet.
Sorry for the interruption.
Slarti,then I agree with you.
Slarti,then I agree with you.
Slarti,then I agree with you.
Interesting article on some changing EU immigration policy.
https://www.thenation.com/article/if-sweden-and-denmark-are-so-progressive-why-did-they-close-their-doors-to-refugees/
Interesting article on some changing EU immigration policy.
https://www.thenation.com/article/if-sweden-and-denmark-are-so-progressive-why-did-they-close-their-doors-to-refugees/
Interesting article on some changing EU immigration policy.
https://www.thenation.com/article/if-sweden-and-denmark-are-so-progressive-why-did-they-close-their-doors-to-refugees/
“I see no way to improve anything in Syria, either by doing less or doing more, or doing nothing.
Too many blood feuds. Too many belligerents with loyalties that shift by the minute.”
Compare and contrast with Lebanese civil war. Sometimes the knuckleheads just have to brawl until they’re tired of brawling. Outsiders don’t help.
“I see no way to improve anything in Syria, either by doing less or doing more, or doing nothing.
Too many blood feuds. Too many belligerents with loyalties that shift by the minute.”
Compare and contrast with Lebanese civil war. Sometimes the knuckleheads just have to brawl until they’re tired of brawling. Outsiders don’t help.
“I see no way to improve anything in Syria, either by doing less or doing more, or doing nothing.
Too many blood feuds. Too many belligerents with loyalties that shift by the minute.”
Compare and contrast with Lebanese civil war. Sometimes the knuckleheads just have to brawl until they’re tired of brawling. Outsiders don’t help.
We all like to think that people will behave rationally in most cases. Especially when not doing so will get a lot of people, possibly including themselves and those they care about, killed. But the sad truth is that it isn’t true always and everywhere.
So, as Snarki says, sometimes you just have to let them trash each other until either they get tired of it, or they kill each other off, or somebody (internal, preferably) comes along who is willing and able to knock heads together and force them to behave. The latter seems (outside Lebanon) to be where the Middle East is at.
We all like to think that people will behave rationally in most cases. Especially when not doing so will get a lot of people, possibly including themselves and those they care about, killed. But the sad truth is that it isn’t true always and everywhere.
So, as Snarki says, sometimes you just have to let them trash each other until either they get tired of it, or they kill each other off, or somebody (internal, preferably) comes along who is willing and able to knock heads together and force them to behave. The latter seems (outside Lebanon) to be where the Middle East is at.
We all like to think that people will behave rationally in most cases. Especially when not doing so will get a lot of people, possibly including themselves and those they care about, killed. But the sad truth is that it isn’t true always and everywhere.
So, as Snarki says, sometimes you just have to let them trash each other until either they get tired of it, or they kill each other off, or somebody (internal, preferably) comes along who is willing and able to knock heads together and force them to behave. The latter seems (outside Lebanon) to be where the Middle East is at.
But the sad truth is that it isn’t true always and everywhere.
Historically, this is a huge understatement and what constitutes ‘rational’ is entirely a matter of perspective and perception. Weakness, or the appearance of weakness, (or, if you like, ‘vulnerability or the appearance of vulnerability) invites opportunism. See, e.g. Pearl Harbor and Korea.
Going forward, I’m happy for Putin to get in the business of propping up Middle East dictators. Good luck with that and let us know how that works out for you, ten or twenty years from now.
Which is not to say that a discrete, sustained campaign limited to inflicting significant attrition on ISIL wouldn’t be in order.
But the sad truth is that it isn’t true always and everywhere.
Historically, this is a huge understatement and what constitutes ‘rational’ is entirely a matter of perspective and perception. Weakness, or the appearance of weakness, (or, if you like, ‘vulnerability or the appearance of vulnerability) invites opportunism. See, e.g. Pearl Harbor and Korea.
Going forward, I’m happy for Putin to get in the business of propping up Middle East dictators. Good luck with that and let us know how that works out for you, ten or twenty years from now.
Which is not to say that a discrete, sustained campaign limited to inflicting significant attrition on ISIL wouldn’t be in order.
But the sad truth is that it isn’t true always and everywhere.
Historically, this is a huge understatement and what constitutes ‘rational’ is entirely a matter of perspective and perception. Weakness, or the appearance of weakness, (or, if you like, ‘vulnerability or the appearance of vulnerability) invites opportunism. See, e.g. Pearl Harbor and Korea.
Going forward, I’m happy for Putin to get in the business of propping up Middle East dictators. Good luck with that and let us know how that works out for you, ten or twenty years from now.
Which is not to say that a discrete, sustained campaign limited to inflicting significant attrition on ISIL wouldn’t be in order.
“I see no way to improve anything in Syria, either by doing less or doing more, or doing nothing.”
I mostly agree with that, except that I think we did make it worse by helping the rebels to some degree. One group we helped until 2015 recently joined up with Al Qaeda–excuse me, the Syrian Conquest something or other. Were they really such plausible democracy-loving people before? Other countries, like our lovely allies the Saudis and our other pals in Turkey, did much more of this. Intervening on the theory that wonderful democracy loving armed men would topple Assad and everyone would be happy–well, who the hell would have thought that likely? Anything is possible, but given recent history or distant history or really, history in general, it was a long shot. Which makes me think that at least some of the people pushing this policy just wanted to weaken the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah-Russian axis by turning Syria into a basket case and didn’t give a damn what happened to Syrians. The idea of a war between the Shiites (with Russian allies) and the jihadis was probably quite appealing, just the way some Americans used to gloat over the Iraq-Iran war. That would definitely be the case with the Saudis, who would no doubt be ready to fight to the last Syrian or jihadi who might otherwise turn his attention elsewhere. The Saudi government don’t seem overly enamored with democracy at home. I suspect some American supporters of rebel support were also thinking along the same lines.
Some Israelis have come right out and said something like this, but I’d have to hunt down links. From their pov, setting morality aside, having Hezbollah busy in Syria is all for the best, though on the down side Hezbollah is getting lots of military experience. Not that the Israelis have played much of a role here.
“I see no way to improve anything in Syria, either by doing less or doing more, or doing nothing.”
I mostly agree with that, except that I think we did make it worse by helping the rebels to some degree. One group we helped until 2015 recently joined up with Al Qaeda–excuse me, the Syrian Conquest something or other. Were they really such plausible democracy-loving people before? Other countries, like our lovely allies the Saudis and our other pals in Turkey, did much more of this. Intervening on the theory that wonderful democracy loving armed men would topple Assad and everyone would be happy–well, who the hell would have thought that likely? Anything is possible, but given recent history or distant history or really, history in general, it was a long shot. Which makes me think that at least some of the people pushing this policy just wanted to weaken the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah-Russian axis by turning Syria into a basket case and didn’t give a damn what happened to Syrians. The idea of a war between the Shiites (with Russian allies) and the jihadis was probably quite appealing, just the way some Americans used to gloat over the Iraq-Iran war. That would definitely be the case with the Saudis, who would no doubt be ready to fight to the last Syrian or jihadi who might otherwise turn his attention elsewhere. The Saudi government don’t seem overly enamored with democracy at home. I suspect some American supporters of rebel support were also thinking along the same lines.
Some Israelis have come right out and said something like this, but I’d have to hunt down links. From their pov, setting morality aside, having Hezbollah busy in Syria is all for the best, though on the down side Hezbollah is getting lots of military experience. Not that the Israelis have played much of a role here.
“I see no way to improve anything in Syria, either by doing less or doing more, or doing nothing.”
I mostly agree with that, except that I think we did make it worse by helping the rebels to some degree. One group we helped until 2015 recently joined up with Al Qaeda–excuse me, the Syrian Conquest something or other. Were they really such plausible democracy-loving people before? Other countries, like our lovely allies the Saudis and our other pals in Turkey, did much more of this. Intervening on the theory that wonderful democracy loving armed men would topple Assad and everyone would be happy–well, who the hell would have thought that likely? Anything is possible, but given recent history or distant history or really, history in general, it was a long shot. Which makes me think that at least some of the people pushing this policy just wanted to weaken the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah-Russian axis by turning Syria into a basket case and didn’t give a damn what happened to Syrians. The idea of a war between the Shiites (with Russian allies) and the jihadis was probably quite appealing, just the way some Americans used to gloat over the Iraq-Iran war. That would definitely be the case with the Saudis, who would no doubt be ready to fight to the last Syrian or jihadi who might otherwise turn his attention elsewhere. The Saudi government don’t seem overly enamored with democracy at home. I suspect some American supporters of rebel support were also thinking along the same lines.
Some Israelis have come right out and said something like this, but I’d have to hunt down links. From their pov, setting morality aside, having Hezbollah busy in Syria is all for the best, though on the down side Hezbollah is getting lots of military experience. Not that the Israelis have played much of a role here.
Saudi government doesn’t, not don’t. I started saying the Saudis don’t, then changed it to Saudi government, not wanting to bash ordinary Saudis. Grammatical chaos ensued.
Saudi government doesn’t, not don’t. I started saying the Saudis don’t, then changed it to Saudi government, not wanting to bash ordinary Saudis. Grammatical chaos ensued.
Saudi government doesn’t, not don’t. I started saying the Saudis don’t, then changed it to Saudi government, not wanting to bash ordinary Saudis. Grammatical chaos ensued.
Which is not to say that a discrete, sustained campaign limited to inflicting significant attrition on ISIL wouldn’t be in order.
Of course, there’s a (domestic, political) downside to this. Because a discrete campaign pretty much guarantees that, since it isn’t going to be instantly effective, there will be loud and sustained calls for the President to “do something” about those horrible people.
Which really means “be seen to be doing something.” Sort of like TSA — it isn’t important to actually accomplish anything useful. What’s important is to do something visible, which can be pointed to with pride. Merely being effective gets you nothing in the current political environment.
Which is not to say that a discrete, sustained campaign limited to inflicting significant attrition on ISIL wouldn’t be in order.
Of course, there’s a (domestic, political) downside to this. Because a discrete campaign pretty much guarantees that, since it isn’t going to be instantly effective, there will be loud and sustained calls for the President to “do something” about those horrible people.
Which really means “be seen to be doing something.” Sort of like TSA — it isn’t important to actually accomplish anything useful. What’s important is to do something visible, which can be pointed to with pride. Merely being effective gets you nothing in the current political environment.
Which is not to say that a discrete, sustained campaign limited to inflicting significant attrition on ISIL wouldn’t be in order.
Of course, there’s a (domestic, political) downside to this. Because a discrete campaign pretty much guarantees that, since it isn’t going to be instantly effective, there will be loud and sustained calls for the President to “do something” about those horrible people.
Which really means “be seen to be doing something.” Sort of like TSA — it isn’t important to actually accomplish anything useful. What’s important is to do something visible, which can be pointed to with pride. Merely being effective gets you nothing in the current political environment.